09-10-2008 05:16 AM - edited 03-03-2019 11:29 PM
If i need to configure unequal load balancing with ratio for example 4:1 how i should to play with delay to meet that requirement?
first path is R4(bw=1544k,dly=20000)->R1(bw=1544k,dly=20000)->R5(bw=100000k,dly=100)
second path is
R4(bw=100000k,dly=100)->R5(bw=100000k,dly=100)
Solved! Go to Solution.
09-10-2008 09:05 AM
Hello Mike,
with default K values the EIGRP metric formula is:
256 * (sum of delays in 10s of microseconds)+
256 * 10^7/(Minimum Bandwidth on the path in kbps)
then it is the distance as calculated that has to be up to 4 times the best metric.
To be remembered that in any case the advertised distance must be stricly lower then the Feasible distance: eigrp variance does not allow to bypass the feasibility condition.
So in your scenario:
you need to increase delay out interface of R4 to R5 so that:
256 * 10^7 / 100000 + 256*( +100) > 256 * 10^7 / /1544 + 256*(20000+100)
feasibility condition
and :
256 * 10^7 / /1544 + 256*(20000+20000+100) < 4 * [256 * 10^7 / 100000 + 256*(x +100)]
I think here the feasibility condition is never satisfied because with no change of delay is R1 more near to destination then the local router R5.
Because R1 is connected with a slower link to R5 and then with another slower link to R4.
R4 has a direct fast connection to R5.
From the point of view of R4 about R5's destination R1 is not nearer to the destination but the opposite and is never seen as a possible alternate path a feasible successor and not usable even by configuring variance.
Hope to help
Giuseppe
09-10-2008 09:05 AM
Hello Mike,
with default K values the EIGRP metric formula is:
256 * (sum of delays in 10s of microseconds)+
256 * 10^7/(Minimum Bandwidth on the path in kbps)
then it is the distance as calculated that has to be up to 4 times the best metric.
To be remembered that in any case the advertised distance must be stricly lower then the Feasible distance: eigrp variance does not allow to bypass the feasibility condition.
So in your scenario:
you need to increase delay out interface of R4 to R5 so that:
256 * 10^7 / 100000 + 256*( +100) > 256 * 10^7 / /1544 + 256*(20000+100)
feasibility condition
and :
256 * 10^7 / /1544 + 256*(20000+20000+100) < 4 * [256 * 10^7 / 100000 + 256*(x +100)]
I think here the feasibility condition is never satisfied because with no change of delay is R1 more near to destination then the local router R5.
Because R1 is connected with a slower link to R5 and then with another slower link to R4.
R4 has a direct fast connection to R5.
From the point of view of R4 about R5's destination R1 is not nearer to the destination but the opposite and is never seen as a possible alternate path a feasible successor and not usable even by configuring variance.
Hope to help
Giuseppe
09-11-2008 09:47 PM
Hello!
Thank you very much, it's very helpfull answer!
Regards,
Mike
Find answers to your questions by entering keywords or phrases in the Search bar above. New here? Use these resources to familiarize yourself with the community: