IP Unnumbered, Frame-relay, EIGRP & equal cost paths

[jsseibel]

Question:

I have three equal-cost path links t-1 frame-relay links. Three connections are on one router (say, the home office). Two links go to one router at the remote office and the other link goes to another router in the same remote office.

Currently, IP UNNUMBERED is configured over sub-interface, frame-relay links with IP UNNUMBERED specified using E0/0 at the corporate office. The same configuration is the same at the remote office.

I am finding that we are experiencing poor performance across all of the links. EXTENDED PINGS result in every-other packet looping between the two remote office ethernet ports and returning via the other link back.

We are using EIGRP and CEF.

Questions:

1. Are there any issues with equal cost path links using IP UNNUMBERED? This means we are using e0/0 for TWO links on the same router to the destination using the same configuration (on the other side).

2. Generally, are there any other issues that pose a possible threat/issues/concerns?

Thanks!

[j-block]

This setup will always be problematic as two separate links have the same ip address. Pretty tough to get around that, and a breakdown is going to happen there.

http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/701/20.html

One idea is to slap a secondary ip address on that e0/0 and point one link to one ip and one to the other, which may give the device enough of a layer 3 foothold.

[ruwhite]

I'm not certian this should be a problem.... We would need more information to solve this, though--what does the routing table look like on both ends? Are you pinging from the router or a host? Pakcets switched through the router are bound to be per flow load shared, while packets originating on the router are going to be per packet switched.

It sounds like you have a problem in the routing or cef tables someplace, but it's hard to say with what we have thus far.

Russ