I noticed some examples for doing this using EIGRP were posted on this
list... has anyone done this using more than 2 T1s (assuming all paths
equal)?
The reason I ask, is because I have the EIGRP solution implemented using
three T1s, and noticed that the 3rd T1 does not get totally included in
the load-balancing using this strategy... I was really wondering if anyone
has had any better luck with this using 3 equal paths...
For instance...
Interface #1
5 minute input rate 576000 bits/sec, 125 packets/sec
5 minute output rate 97000 bits/sec, 144 packets/sec
Inteface #2
5 minute input rate 577000 bits/sec, 124 packets/sec
5 minute output rate 93000 bits/sec, 145 packets/sec
Interface #3
5 minute input rate 463000 bits/sec, 100 packets/sec
5 minute output rate 79000 bits/sec, 116 packets/sec
Now, this isn't as severe as it has been... I have seen interface #3 at
only 50% of what the other 2 are doing before... it seems to vary now and
then, but I don't know why... all interfaces are configured identically
on both sides... the links are essentially error free... the 'no ip
route-cache' is implemented on all the interfaces as well.
Here is how I understood it... It should be that traffic gets spread
across the links on a per-packet basis, but maybe not??? Would there be
another way it (eigrp) is handling the traffic across the 3 links... like
maybe based upon connection or something to that effect???
Scott
On Tue, 3 Feb 1998, David Schmidt wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Feb 1998, Tatsuya Kawasaki wrote:
>
> > Dear Cisco users and ISP,
> >
> > I am wondering if any of you, as always, give me any suggestion
> > about how to create equal network load if there is
> > two cisco's which are connected with two leased lines.
> >
> > Cisco A s0 <------> Cisco B so
> > Cisoc A s1 <------> Cisco B s1
> >
> > and say, on the LAN port of Cisco A has NAS(s).
> >
> > My task is to distrubute even traffic over two leased lines.
> >
> > I know static will not do it. I don' think OSPF won't either.
>
> Actually, we have been able to do this with static routing for some of our
> frame relay clients where (because of mileage charges) it's been cheaper
> for them to do multiple 56K links instead of a T1.
>
> Here is an example of two load balanced 56K links which happen to go out
> from us on one frame-relay T1 using sub-interfaces (some addresses hidden
> for customer's privacy):
>
> interface Serial1.3 point-to-point
> description customer 56K link 1
> ip address nnn.nnn.115.1 255.255.255.252
> no ip mroute-cache
> no ip route-cache
> bandwidth 56
> frame-relay interface-dlci 20 IETF
> !
> interface Serial1.4 point-to-point
> description customer 56K link 2
> ip address nnn.nnn.115.5 255.255.255.252
> no ip mroute-cache
> no ip route-cache
> bandwidth 56
> frame-relay interface-dlci 26 IETF
>
>
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Keoseyan Director of Technology
falcon@labyrinth.org Powercom
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Aug 04 2002 - 04:13:15 EDT