>
> EIGRP
>
Ok, I know that Eigrp does unequal cost load-balancing,
but my question was whether I could do the same with
Ospf?
Thanks in advance,
Vicky
> At 09:43 7/10/98 -0400, you wrote:
> >To: cisco-nsp@qual.net
> >cc: noc-backbone@forthnet.gr, vfyr@forthnet.gr
> >Subject: Load Balancing and Backup with OSPF
> >From: Vicky Fyrigou <vfyr@forthnet.gr>
> >
> >Hello all,
> >
> >We have tried to implement load balancing and backup, by using simply
> >ospf on two links. In fact, we had 2 links of 64kbps on two routers
> >with different networks on area 0. The links were of the same speed,
> >thus the ospf cost was the same and the test worked just fine.
> >Note that both interfaces had frame-relay encapsulation and we used
> >>>sub-interfaces for the connections. All sub-interfaces had ospf
> >network broadcast. We also used authentication for the area 0.
> >
> >The problems started when we tried to use the same scenario with 2
> >lines of different speed: one of 64Kpbs and one of 128Kbps. I found
> >from Cisco FAQ that Ospf will only load share if the paths are the same
> >and that in order for Ospf to think that, you have to change the ospf
> >cost on the interfaces. So I did (once I changed the ospf cost to the
> >lowest speed -1562 on all interfaces and then I changed to the highest
> >speed- 800 on all interfaces).
> >
> >The point is that load-sharing seemed to be working, but under full load
> >the interface with the highest bandwidth would only work up to 64Kbps!
> >
> >What I could see from the ospf routes was that the traffic share count
> >was 1 for both interfaces.
> >
> >Do you know whether there is a possibility to change somehow the traffic
> >share count for the interfaces, or any other way to make this work?
> >
> >Thanks in advance,
> >
> >Regards,
> >
> >Vicky
> >
> >
> >
> >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Aug 04 2002 - 04:13:13 EDT