Re: EIGRP DUAL Variance

From: Tony Singh <mothafungla_at_gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2013 15:31:29 +0100

Hi Joe

Thanks, I'm confused.com it's almost like it bypasses the eigrp topology table
and looks at the all-links when variance is selected and the initial statement
doesn't hold true.

--
BR
Tony
Sent from my iPhone on 3
> On 7 Oct 2013, at 08:54, Joe Astorino <joeastorino1982_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hmmmm....also this Cisco white paper seems to agree with the book and with
how I thought it worked. They have a simplified version of what you are
testing with easier to read numbers.
>
> In the example, the path through D is not chosen because it's metric is not
< variance * FD.  However, it also goes on to make this point:
>
> "Also, the reported distance of neighbor D is 25, which is greater than the
feasible distance (FD) of 20 through C. This means that, even if variance is
set to 3, the E-D-A path is not selected for load balancing because Router D
is not a feasible successor."
>
> This seems to certainly be making the case that to be considered for unequal
cost load balancing via variance, a path must first pass the feasibility
condition.  Clearly, your lab results show otherwise though.
>
>
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/tech/tk365/technologies_tech_note09186a008009437d.
shtml#var
>
>
>
>
>> On Mon, Oct 7, 2013 at 3:34 AM, Joe Astorino <joeastorino1982_at_gmail.com>
wrote:
>> This certainly seems strange to me.  Granted, it is like 4AM or something
here, but if you had asked me I would have thought EIGRP would not consider
the F1/0 path for anything, given it doesn't meet the feasibility condition.
I'd certainly be interested to hear if anybody else has an answer.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Sun, Oct 6, 2013 at 2:53 PM, Tony Singh <mothafungla_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>>> CCNP ROUTE 642-902 Official Certification Guide
>>>
>>> "Routes that are neither successor nor feasible successor can never be
>>> added to the IP routing table, regardless of the variance setting"
>>>
>>> I did a little lab
>>>
>>>    --- r2 ---
>>> r1 ----r3 ---- r5 loopback 5.5.5.5
>>>     ----r4 ----
>>>
>>>
>>> no variance
>>>
>>> all-links
>>> P 5.5.5.5/32, 1 successors, FD is 158720, serno 55
>>>         via 10.0.0.1 (158720/156160), FastEthernet0/0
>>>         via 20.0.0.1 (161536/158976), FastEthernet1/1
>>>         via 30.0.0.1 (1790976/156160), FastEthernet1/0
>>>
>>> topology
>>> P 5.5.5.5/32, 1 successors, FD is 158720
>>>         via 10.0.0.1 (158720/156160), FastEthernet0/0
>>>         via 30.0.0.1 (1790976/156160), FastEthernet1/0
>>>
>>> global-rib
>>> D        5.5.5.5 [90/158720] via 10.0.0.1, 00:00:44, FastEthernet0/0
>>>
>>>
>>> the reason we choose f1/0 path as FS over f1/1 is due to the AD<FD of
>>> successor holding true even if it has a worse FD - expected behaviour and
>>> end result no load-balancing as no equal cost paths (max 4 equal cost
paths
>>> by default)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> if I apply a variance of x2
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> all-links
>>> P 5.5.5.5/32, 2 successors, FD is 158720, serno 52
>>>         via 10.0.0.1 (158720/156160), FastEthernet0/0
>>>         via 20.0.0.1 (161536/158976), FastEthernet1/1
>>>         via 30.0.0.1 (1790976/156160), FastEthernet1/0
>>>
>>> topology
>>> P 5.5.5.5/32, 2 successors, FD is 158720
>>>         via 10.0.0.1 (158720/156160), FastEthernet0/0
>>>         via 30.0.0.1 (1790976/156160), FastEthernet1/0
>>>
>>> global-rib
>>> D        5.5.5.5  [90/158720] via 10.0.0.1, 00:00:53, FastEthernet0/0
>>>                   [90/161536] via 20.0.0.1, 00:00:53, FastEthernet1/1
>>>
>>>
>>> ok so we're now permitting the f1/1 path being installed as a viable
>>> load-balancing destination, this shows me two things, first that dual
will
>>> permit a non-successor or non-feasible successor into global rib as
viable
>>> load-balancing paths and second dual compares the end-to-end FD for
making
>>> a decision on which path it would prefer to load-balance looking at the
>>> all-links topology as f1/1 has a lower FD than f1/0
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> this does make the above argument invalid - im wondering if EIGRP has
since
>>> been enhanced for this DUAL behaviour? if so then I guess the whole point
>>> for the statement in the first place was to avoid a loop i.e if you're
not
>>> a successor or feasible successor then you a loop, what has changed?
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> BR
>>>
>>> Tony
>>>
>>>
>>> Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________________________________
>>> Subscription information may be found at:
>>> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Regards,
>>
>> Joe Astorino
>> CCIE #24347
>> http://astorinonetworks.com
>>
>> "He not busy being born is busy dying" - Dylan
>
>
>
> --
> Regards,
>
> Joe Astorino
> CCIE #24347
> http://astorinonetworks.com
>
> "He not busy being born is busy dying" - Dylan
Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
Received on Mon Oct 07 2013 - 15:31:29 ART

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Fri Nov 01 2013 - 07:35:39 ART