Your comment about treating both links the same (if one is 1 MB, other link is also 1 Mb, so rest of bandwidth are not in use) would be true if the load balancing were based on static routes or on manipulating OSPF metrics to make both paths look equal. But with EIGRP unequal load balancing the traffic will be shared proportional to the bandwidth of each link.
I do not currently have anything running EIGRP unequal load balancing. I believe that I have had it running (and thought it was running correctly sharing load on both links) but that was a long time ago. And frankly I am not enthused about this aspect of EIGRP.
I believe that many people have problems trying to get unequal load balancing to work because they do not pay attention to the detail that the second link must qualify as a feasible successor. In many cases they have a wide difference in capacity between the links and think that if they make variance large enough that it should load balance. But with very large capacity differences it is difficult to get feasible successors.
Thanks for your comment about the rating. I was surprised and disappointed by the low rating, especially since it was only a small correction to someone else's post. But I figure that is part of being a publically rated system.
In fact I remember a long time ago, I was tinkering with EIGRP and wanted to try "unequal load balancing", the feasible successor issue came up, and required special tuning. Honestly I don't remember if the routing as set like that, was bringing any practical advantage.
Then I didn't touched anymore that particular network, and for the following 10 years, most of them spent working at cisco, I haven't heard of anyone using the feature with any success, actually quite the opposite. I've hence happily adopted this position.
What puzzles me most about it, is that I don't see a provision for unequal load sharing in CEF, that is ultimately responsible for actual packet switching, while EIGRP is only in the control plane and cannot influence it directly.
Wrt the rating, we already know that occasionally someone that that disagrees, isn't happy with the answers, or simply don't understand it, misuses the system.
Anyway, your contribution is very much appreciated and I invite you to keep up with the good work here!
I have not thought much about the interaction with CEF but a long time ago I had much the same question about how it did unequal load share since EIGRP puts routes into the routing table and some other process is making the forwarding decision. When I asked about it I was told that the traffic share parameter was used for this. I am not sure if that has some interaction with CEF.
Thanks for the kind words. I hope that we both continue to be active and to keep up the good work.
This is actually a pretty cool feature, i didn't even know it existed until I was looking for a solution to advertise a subnet (prefix in BGP talk), only if a certain condition existed. This is exactly what conditional advertisements does
j ai une question j ai achete un routeur cisco 887VA-k9 , je le configuré avec la configuration ci- dessous
si je le lier avec mon pc portable sur l un de ses ports directement ça marche toute est bien ( la connexion internet + m...
Attached policy provides CLI access to the Cisco 4G router over text messaging. Two files are in the attached .tar file:
2. PDF with instructions on how to load and use the .tcl file.