From: Atlanta CCIE (atlantaccie@gmail.com)
Date: Tue Oct 28 2008 - 12:00:18 ARST
Thanks for the responses guys. I will try this out.
On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 4:51 AM, Paul Alexander <paul@pacific.net.au> wrote:
> I think when I did this I changed the following:
>
> - Set the delay from R4 -> R5 to 2
> - Set the delay from R4 -> R1 to 1
> - Set the delay from R1 -> R5 to 1
> - Set variance to 4 on R4
>
> This way its only the bandwidth that comes into play. So then you just set
> the minimum bandwidth on the R4/R5 path to be 4 times that of the other path
> (ie 512/128). Just make sure that the bandwidth value you used to inject
> those RIP routes into eigrp is equal to or higher than the bandwidth value
> of the Ethernet path between R4 and R5.
>
> Paul.
>
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 2:59 AM, Atlanta CCIE <atlantaccie@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> I thought I had unequal cost load balancing figured out until I ran into
>> task 3.7 IEWB Vol 2 Lab 8. The task states that we need to achieve 4:1
>> load
>> balancing. IE SG says use whatever values to get 4:1 ratio. My question is
>> HOW do I come up with these values? I tried a few random values but didn't
>> work.
>>
>> Can someone explain to me HOW you got 4:1 ratio? It would be nice if its a
>> step by step process.
>>
>> Basically the topology is something like this
>>
>>
>> R4
>>
>> | -
>>
>> | -
>>
>> | R1
>>
>> | -
>>
>> | -
>>
>> R5
>>
>> |
>>
>> |
>>
>> |
>>
>> BB2
>>
>>
>> So R4 and R5 have an ethernet connection between them and they are also
>> connected via frame-relay cloud through R1. IE uses delay to achieve the
>> 4:1
>> ratio. Anyone who has worked this lab can shed some light? I thought I
>> knew
>> unequal cost load balancing but I guess not :(
>>
>>
>> Thanks guys!
>>
>>
>> Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
>>
>> _______________________________________________________________________
>> Subscription information may be found at:
>> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Nov 01 2008 - 15:35:23 ARST