Re: EIGRP: traffic-share min across-interfaces

I also think its a way to loadshare traffic on as many different interfaces
as possible. The accross interface keyword is load sharing routes per
interface. So for example you have 3 interfaces with each three routes. It
will let you use three paths over three interface with the best metric

Kind regards,

Maarten Vervoon

2011/3/28 Steve Di Bias <sdibias_at_gmail.com>

> Agreed
>
> On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 11:42 AM, Tyson Scott <tscott_at_ipexpert.com> wrote:
>
> > There also is not path recalcuation when the change occurs so it saves
> > system resources as well. It is good for that reason but why not load
> > balance when you can :)
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Tyson Scott - CCIE #13513 R&S, Security, and SP
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: nobody_at_groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody_at_groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
> > Steve Di Bias
> > Sent: Sunday, March 27, 2011 9:01 PM
> > To: Jacek
> > Cc: Cisco certification
> > Subject: 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
> >
> > _______________________________________________________________________
> > 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
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> Subscription information may be found at:
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html

Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
Received on Tue Mar 29 2011 - 07:44:30 ART