Re: EIGRP: traffic-share min across-interfaces

Convergence is already lightning fast when feasible successors exist in the
topology table, so I don't think this command saves very much time in the
long run. If I had to guess I'd say it was invented to speed up the
convergence time by some miniscule amount of time, I just don't know why.

On Sun, Mar 27, 2011 at 7:44 PM, Jacek <q.192.168.1.0_at_gmail.com> wrote:

> Hello Experts,
>
> What is the purpose of EIGRP configuration command:
> traffic-share min across-interfaces
>
> If I understand correctly:
> If both "variance x" and "traffic-share min" are configured, both routes
> (slower and faster) will be installed in the routing table but only faster
> route will be used. In theory at least the recovery will be faster. The
> reason is that backup route is already in the routing table and will not
> have to be inserted in routing table if primary goes down. In other words,
> feasible successor will not have to be "moved" from topology table into
> routing table.
>
> But in real world how much time does it take to install a route in the
> routing table? Just keep in mind that there is no calculations, queries
> etc.
> A microsecond, millisecond ?
>
> Just wondering if Cisco invented this command to save very little on
> recovery time or is there something else behind it ?
>
>
> Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> Subscription information may be found at:
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

-- 
-Steve Di Bias
Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net