[c-nsp] EIGRP potentially silly question...

[Pete Lumbis]

Yeah, what you're looking for is PfR


On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 12:53 AM, quinn snyder <snyderq at gmail.com> wrote:

> something like pfr[0] may be useful in this instance, assuming the kit can
> run it.
> on newer kit, pfr-v2 is much less sucky than the pfr of old.
>
> q.
>
> [0]
> http://docwiki.cisco.com/wiki/PfR:Solutions:BasicLoadBalancing#PfR_Features_that_Enable_Load_Balancing
>
> -= sent via ipad. please excuse brevity, spelling, and grammar =-
>
> > On Mar 5, 2014, at 22:14, Alex Pressé <alex.presse at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > You could create a second EIGRP process with a value for K2
> >
> > router eigrp 2
> > metric weights 0 1 1 1 0 0
> >
> > Any identical routes in this second "new" instance of EIGRP will have a
> > higher metric than the original EIGRP process. And thusly will NOT be
> > installed in the routing table - provided they are *identical*.
> >
> > This would allow you to build out the entire second EIGRP process without
> > it coming live uncontrolled.
> > Then you could selectively remove networks from the original EIGRP (or
> > manually increase them via offset lists). As they get removed from old
> > EIGRP the new EIGRP routes would automatically take over.
> >
> > You're still left with the unfortunate part about the metric never
> actually
> > changing unless DUAL is triggered. And in my little bit of labbing this
> > past hour it appears that just because one side updated the metric; the
> > other side will *not* under certain circumstances.... So you can have two
> > routers having different loading values for the same link(s). Resulting
> in
> > asymmetric flows.
> >
> > I bet somebody has made an EEM script to do "clear ip eigrp neighbors
> soft"
> > on an interval or interface loading thresholds. This would at least get
> it
> > to work "as intended".
> >
> > All in all; fucking ugly. I just use default K values and a variance
> value
> > of 2 with some simple offset lists or bandwidth statements. Much easier
> to
> > support and troubleshoot at 03:15 during a vacation.
> >
> >
> >> On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 8:22 PM, Jeff Kell <jeff-kell at utc.edu> wrote:
> >>
> >> After a deployment of EIGRP with the intent of providing "link
> >> utilization based load-sharing" as opposed to round robin, I get the
> >> rude awakening that the default k-values for EIGRP do NOT include link
> >> utilization.
> >>
> >> Any shortcuts / workarounds / etc to resetting k-values site-wide
> >> without breaking each individual peering as the values are changed?
> >> (EIGRP won't peer with mismatched k-values...)
> >>
> >> Jeff
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
> >> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
> >> archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Alex Presse
> > "How much net work could a network work if a network could net work?"
> > _______________________________________________
> > cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
> > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
> > archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
>
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
> archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
>