It depends on what your route table shows.
If you pick a destination on the other side of the 2600, what does the
route table on the 7500 show?
If it shows two paths, then you should load balance depending on what
mechanism you have chosen.
If not, you need to look at the routing protocol you are running or your
static routes and determine why it is not considering the two paths to
be equal.
David
-----Original Message-----
From: jlewis@lewis.org [mailto:jlewis@lewis.org]
Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2001 6:40 PM
To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: RE: PBR
> >The simple answer is "no", but you have other options.
> >
> >Cisco's load balancing is not intelligent, and is not balancing. It
is
> >a fixed hash over the given number of links that cause a given flow
to
> >always use the same link out of a given router. There is no feedback
> >mechanism. Thus you can have very clumpy traffic (especially on
slower
> >speed links).
Speaking of IOS and load balancing, is there a reason I can't have a
point
to point T1 and a frame relay T1 between a 7500 and a 2600 and have the
7500 load share across the 2 pipes using CEF and load-sharing per-packet
(or even with no ip route-cache) on both interfaces? They have the same
BW value and what appear to be equal cost static routes pointing at the
other end of each pipe, but the 7500 only sends traffic across the PTP
T1.
Both circuits are on a MC-T3 card. The PTP is using HDLC.
The 7500 is RSP4/VIP2-50/rsp-k3pv-mz.120-11.S3.bin
-- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Jon Lewis *jlewis@lewis.org*| I route System Administrator | therefore you are Atlantic Net | _________ http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key_________
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Aug 04 2002 - 04:12:48 EDT