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
Discover and save your favorite ideas. Come back to expert answers, step-by-step guides, recent topics, and more.
New here? Get started with these tips. How to use Community New member guide