OOPS. I meant. 240 down path 4, 181 down path 3, 121 down path 2, and 61
down path 1.
-- Paul Negron CCIE# 14856 CCSI# 22752 Senior Technical Instructor www.micronicstraining.com > From: Bilal Hansrod <bilal.hansrod_at_gmail.com> > Reply-To: Bilal Hansrod <bilal.hansrod_at_gmail.com> > Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2010 11:22:22 +1000 > To: Garth Bryden <hacked.the.planet.on.28.8k.dialup_at_gmail.com> > Cc: Cisco certification <ccielab_at_groupstudy.com> > Subject: Re: EIGRP Traffic Share Count > > Sorry Garth, I didn't mean to confuse you, but waiting for big boys to come > up with logical explanation when they have time :-) > > Regards, > > Bilal H > > > > > On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 11:12 AM, Garth Bryden < > hacked.the.planet.on.28.8k.dialup_at_gmail.com> wrote: > >> Would be nice to find out why such the large values, I believe it is so it >> can get the share ratio as accurate as possible while using whole numbers, >> because the actual ratio is so close. >> >> Though, I always believed the traffic share count would always start at 1 >> then the rest of the paths increased based on the ratio.. if the numbers >> where not whole numbers then it'd be rounded down to the whole number.. but >> based on that logic your traffic share count 1:1 not 103:120 >> >> Though after googling to try find some information on it, I've come back >> with nothing and more confused than before!! There is a cisco press book >> "Traffic Engineering with MPLS" which is saying non-whole numbers are >> rounded UP to the nearest integer not rounded DOWN though all the Cisco >> Documentation says it is rounded down. :-/ >> >> On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 8:44 AM, Bilal Hansrod > <bilal.hansrod_at_gmail.com>wrote: >> >>> Hello again, >>> >>> Garth has provided a valuable resource to calculate Traffic Share and >>> detail about load sharing. Can anyone else, please provide more >>> understanding on how to calculate share based on examples as I am having >>> difficulty understanding nuts and bolts of Traffic Share Count. >>> >>> Thanks everyone - >>> >>> Regards, >>> Bilal >>> >>> On Sun, Sep 26, 2010 at 11:42 PM, Bilal Hansrod < >>> bilal.hansrod_at_gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Thanks Garth, but still I am trying to understand Traffic Share Count >>>> value arrived via calculation. How did you get 120 via 155.1.67.7 and 103 >>>> via 155.1.146.1 (please see below output from show ip route 155.1.9.9). >>>> There is a lab in INE W1 and it asks to change the traffic share to 1:5 > and >>>> uses the formula: >>>> >>>> INE Task 5.15 EIGRP Unequal Cost Load Balancing >>>> >>>> "These paths are now balanced 103:120. To achieve the desired 1:5 traffic >>>> share, >>>> R6s delay on the link to R1 must be updated. The actual values used on >>>> R1, >>>> R3, and R6 for delay can have multiple valid options as long as two >>>> conditions >>>> are true. First, the Advertised Distance R1 sends to R6 must be lower >>>> than R6s >>>> Feasible Distance. Secondly the entire composite result R6 calculates >>>> through >>>> R1 should be five times the Feasible Distance. >>>> In our case R1s Advertised Distance is 40 microseconds, or 4 tens of >>>> microseconds. This specifically means the following must be true if we >>>> want a >>>> traffic share of 1:5. >>>> 3072 * 5 = (R6_TO_R1_DLY + 4) * 256 >>>> Therefore R6s delay to R1 should be 56 tens of microseconds." >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Sun, Sep 26, 2010 at 10:29 PM, Garth Bryden < >>>> hacked.the.planet.on.28.8k.dialup_at_gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi Bilal, >>>>> >>>>> You want to read this post- >>>>> > http://blog.ine.com/2009/05/01/understanding-unequal-cost-load-balancing/.. >>>>> This has an explanation on the traffic share ratio you are seeing above. >>>>> >>>>> I think the answer you seek though is >>>>> >>>>> EIGRP will divide each links metric by the largest paths metric.. >>>>> >>>>> 3584 / 3072 which is 1.166 >>>>> 3584 / 3584 which is 1 >>>>> >>>>> FYI- 120 / 103 = 1.165 >>>>> >>>>> EIGRP will round down to the nearest integer so the first path is >>>>> actually "1" >>>>> >>>>> I also believe the largest metric would have be a path being selected by >>>>> EIGRP for placement into the routing table.. If your route is not > selected >>>>> because the metric is larger than the >>>>> Variance x feasible distance.. I do not believe it will be included in >>>>> the route traffic share calculation. >>>>> >>>>> HTH >>>>> >>>>> Garth >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Sun, Sep 26, 2010 at 6:14 PM, Bilal Hansrod < >>>>> bilal.hansrod_at_gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Hello Everyone, >>>>>> >>>>>> I am having difficulty calculating the EIGRP Traffic Share Count. As >>>>>> far as >>>>>> my understanding regarding Traffic Share Count is, you divide the >>>>>> largest >>>>>> metric with lowest to forward packets based on number. For example >>>>>> >>>>>> A-X = Metric is 10 >>>>>> B-X = Metric is 20 >>>>>> C-X = Metric is 30 >>>>>> D-X = Metric is 40 >>>>>> E-X = Metric is 90 >>>>>> >>>>>> If I configure variance 4, it means all above metric will be used for >>>>>> load >>>>>> balancing except E-X (90), because it does not fall under 80 (Lowest >>>>>> Metric >>>>>> X 4). So when calculate, I still use E-X Metric for Traffic Share >>>>>> Count. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> A-X = Metric is 10 = Traffic Share Count (90/10) = 9 >>>>>> B-X = Metric is 20 = Traffic Share Count (90/20) = 5 >>>>>> C-X = Metric is 30 = Traffic Share Count (90/30) = 3 >>>>>> D-X = Metric is 40 = Traffic Share Count (90/40) = 2 >>>>>> >>>>>> It means 9 packets will be sent via A-X, 5 packets via B-X, 3 packets >>>>>> via >>>>>> C-X, and 2 packets via D-X and round robin. Am I correct till here?? >>>>>> >>>>>> Now, when I have below output, how is Traffic Share Count calculated >>>>>> >>>>>> Rack1R6#show ip route 155.1.9.9 >>>>>> Routing entry for 155.1.9.0/24 >>>>>> Known via "eigrp 100", distance 90, metric 3072, type internal >>>>>> Redistributing via eigrp 10, eigrp 100 >>>>>> Advertised by eigrp 10 >>>>>> Last update from 155.1.146.1 on FastEthernet0/0.146, 00:01:04 ago >>>>>> Routing Descriptor Blocks: >>>>>> 155.1.146.1, from 155.1.146.1, 00:01:04 ago, via FastEthernet0/0.146 >>>>>> Route metric is 3584, traffic share count is 103 >>>>>> Total delay is 140 microseconds, minimum bandwidth is 1544 Kbit >>>>>> Reliability 255/255, minimum MTU 1500 bytes >>>>>> Loading 1/255, Hops 4 >>>>>> >>>>>> * 155.1.67.7, from 155.1.67.7, 00:01:04 ago, via FastEthernet0/0.67 >>>>>> Route metric is 3072, traffic share count is 120 >>>>>> Total delay is 120 microseconds, minimum bandwidth is 100000 Kbit >>>>>> Reliability 255/255, minimum MTU 1500 bytes >>>>>> Loading 1/255, Hops 2 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Anyone's help will be highly appreciated, >>>>>> >>>>>> Regards, >>>>>> >>>>>> Bilal >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> 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 > > _______________________________________________________________________ > Subscription information may be found at: > http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.netReceived on Sun Sep 26 2010 - 22:08:40 ART
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Fri Oct 01 2010 - 05:58:06 ART