From: dara tomar (wish2ie@gmail.com)
Date: Tue Feb 26 2008 - 16:12:22 ARST
*I agree cent percent with Shiran.
Only Eigrp as a routing protocol gives us load-sharing ability based on
metrics difference.
The Switching function is responsible for doing the load-balancing based on
the IP-RIB entries.
The routing table only shows us the number of paths towards the destination
as per RIB.
But in reality the the switching function makes it happen or not.
For every CEF entry (IP route) where there are multiple paths to the
destination, the router creates a 16-row hash table, populating the entries
with pointers to individual paths.
The hash table can be inspected with the show ip cef prefix internal
command.
Execute this command and see how the 16 buckets are distributed.
Ex:
Command: **show ip cef prefix internal
**1>While distributing on two links this is equal-cost balancing on two
links:
Load distribution: 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 (refcount 1)
2>While distributing on three links this is equal-cost balancing on three
links:[only 15 used and one left]
Load distribution: 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 (refcount 1)
Regards,
Dara*
On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 11:27 PM, shiran guez <shiranp3@gmail.com> wrote:
> this is equal cost load sharing, you can see that the load share is equal
> 1
> to each one of the routes, also the load balancing is not a routing
> feature
> but a the switching method
>
> you can select either per-destination or per-packet, the unequal load
> sharing can be done only with EIGRP when using Cisco router. the unequal
> load share mean that you will be able to send for example: for 10 packet
> going out you will be able to send 2 packet with one route and 8 packet
> with
> another route.
>
> the router do not support unequal load balancing using static routes!
>
> On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 7:45 PM, Sadiq Yakasai <sadiqtanko@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi Rik,
> >
> > You can actually do unequal cost load-balancing on the outbound using
> > static routes. Have a look at this (R1 and R3 are dual hommed to each
> > other):
> >
> > 192.168.1.0/24
> > R1 (.1) ---------------------------------------------- (.3) R3
> > ----------------------------------------------
> > 162.1.13.0/24
> >
> > R1#sh run | i ip route
> > ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 192.168.1.3
> > ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 162.1.13.3
> > ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 10.10.10.1
> > ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 10.10.10.3
> > ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 10.10.10.4
> > ip route 10.10.10.1 255.255.255.255 192.168.1.3
> > ip route 10.10.10.2 255.255.255.255 192.168.1.3
> > ip route 10.10.10.3 255.255.255.255 192.168.1.3
> > ip route 10.10.10.4 255.255.255.255 192.168.1.3
> > R1#sh ip route 0.0.0.0
> > Routing entry for 0.0.0.0/0, supernet
> > Known via "static", distance 1, metric 0, candidate default path
> > Routing Descriptor Blocks:
> > * 192.168.1.3
> > Route metric is 0, traffic share count is 1
> > 162.1.13.3
> > Route metric is 0, traffic share count is 1
> > 10.10.10.4
> > Route metric is 0, traffic share count is 1
> > 10.10.10.3
> > Route metric is 0, traffic share count is 1
> > 10.10.10.1
> > Route metric is 0, traffic share count is 1
> >
> > A nice trick there!
> >
> > Sadiq
> >
> > _______________________________________________________________________
> > Subscription information may be found at:
> > http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Shiran Guez
> MCSE CCNP NCE1
> http://cciep3.blogspot.com
> http://www.linkedin.com/in/cciep3
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> Subscription information may be found at:
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Mar 01 2008 - 16:54:49 ARST