From: Thomwin Chen (thomwin_chen@yahoo.com)
Date: Wed Aug 31 2005 - 15:02:21 GMT-3
Sunil,
there is a good example and explanation about this from cisco
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/tech/tk365/technologies_tech_note09186a008009437d.shtml
hope this helps.
Rgds,
Thomwin
Sunil Almeida <Sunil.Almeida@alicogulf.com> wrote:
I got this from another list, is the correct ?
"traffic-share balance command tells the router to use all the available
route to the same subnet proportionately to their route cost while
traffic-share minimum command tells the router to include all the
available route to the same subnet in the routing table but use the one
with the lowest route cost to the subnet"
If the above is right , then I guess the "traffic-share balanced" is not
needed with " Variance 1 "
-----Original Message-----
From: Brian McGahan [mailto:bmcgahan@internetworkexpert.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2005 7:57 PM
To: Sunil Almeida; Jaycee Cockburn - BCX SS; ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: RE: Traffic-share balance keyword
Only routes with an equal composite metric will be installed in
the routing table.
Brian McGahan, CCIE #8593
bmcgahan@internetworkexpert.com
Internetwork Expert, Inc.
http://www.InternetworkExpert.com
Toll Free: 877-224-8987 x 705
Outside US: 775-826-4344 x 705
24/7 Support: http://forum.internetworkexpert.com
Live Chat: http://www.internetworkexpert.com/chat/
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf
Of
> Sunil Almeida
> Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2005 10:50 AM
> To: Jaycee Cockburn - BCX SS; ccielab@groupstudy.com
> Subject: RE: Traffic-share balance keyword
>
> Actually I was preferring to "traffic-share balanced" with "
variance
> 1" , what happens in this scenario
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jaycee Cockburn - BCX SS [mailto:Jaycee.Cockburn@bcx.co.za]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2005 10:14 AM
> To: Sunil Almeida; ccielab@groupstudy.com
> Subject: RE: Traffic-share balance keyword
> Importance: High
>
> Hi S,
>
> On the routers you should have two options regarding traffic-share eg
> ------------------------------------------------------
> Switch(config-router)#traffic-share ?
> balanced Share inversely proportional to metric
> min All traffic shared among min metric paths
> ------------------------------------------------------
> So with the "balanced" option the traffic will be sent over each
route,
> and the amount of packets sent will be determined according to the
> metric. The smaller the metric, the more packets using that route etc.
>
> With the "min" keyword, as I understand (and please correct me if I am
> dilly), all the routes (unequal or not, determined by variance, but
> feasible) will be in the routing table, but only the best one will be
> used (unless if they are equal..)
>
> Hope this helps man!
>
> Cheers
> JC
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf
Of
> Sunil Almeida
> Sent: 31 August 2005 07:50 AM
> To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
> Subject: Traffic-share balance keyword
>
> Hello , here's a question on traffic-share balanced keyword
>
>
> router eigrp 5
> traffic-share balanced
> variance 1
>
>
> The above is an example from cisco Doc CD ,
>
http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/software/ios122/122cgcr/
> fiprrp_r/1rfeigrp.htm#wp1024898
>
>
> "variance 1" is for equal path loadbalancing , so what is the use of
> traffic-share balance syntax here.
>
> Does it serve any purpose ?
>
> Thanks
> Sunil
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sun Sep 04 2005 - 17:01:20 GMT-3