EIGRP

Unanswered Question
Jul 30th, 2007

http://www.cisco.com/en/US/tech/tk365/technologies_tech_note09186a008009437d.shtml

Sirs, when you get a chance take a look at this for a moment. The part I'm focused on is the traffic-share options. The two options are [balanced|min across-interfaces]. I don't understand the purpose for the min across-interfaces command. If I'm correct in my understanding using this command is like not running load balancing. Please advise.

I have this problem too.
0 votes
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Overall Rating: 5 (1 ratings)
Loading.
Edison Ortiz Mon, 07/30/2007 - 06:43

When you introduce the 'variance' option within the EIGRP process, you are able to gain redundant routes in your routing table.

For instance, you have 2 links - one link is 128kbps and the other link is 64kbps. With a normal EIGRP configuration, the routing table will only install the routes coming from the 128kbps connections. However, with the variance option, you would be able to install routes from the 64kbps connection hence providing redundant links and load-balancing.

With the traffic-share balanced (this option is the default), the links will be balanced according to their weights.

With traffic-share min, the 128kbps link will be the only one used regardless 64kbps being in the routing table. The 64kbps link is in the routing table, in order to provide faster convergence in case the 128kbps link goes down.

zurita212001 Mon, 07/30/2007 - 07:12

Mr. Edison,

Sir, but if you never configured load balance. EIGRP calculates for a successor and a Feasible Successor so on a high speed link,T1+, the successor router would be deleted after 15 sec. "with EIGRP default configs". Then EIGRP would converge to the Feasible successor route. Would this not still be the case? or rather how much faster is the convergance.

Edison Ortiz Mon, 07/30/2007 - 07:16

With the variance and traffic shared min, you would have 0ms convergence as the routes are installed in the RIB.

zurita212001 Mon, 07/30/2007 - 07:45

Mr. Edison,

Sir, so you would save 1ms (Neighbor Table to Routing Table)?

Edison Ortiz Mon, 07/30/2007 - 08:12

It depends on the topology regarding the convergence's time but yes, that's the idea.

Actions

This Discussion