I do not see a way to do what you are describing. The major difficulty is that the data packet arrives via path A/B and is forwarded to the destination. The destination generates a response. But when the response gets to the router there is no ability to know what the arrival path was. The router does not maintain state for packets it has already forwarded. And the destination host has no way to know the arrival path - and very little way to signal what the return path should be.
The closest thing that I can think of to your suggestion is some kind of policy routing implementation. This could specify that certain types of traffic would take path A while other types would take path B. You could then have the routers send return traffic over the appropriate path.
I do not think that this solution is perfect. But it is probably as close as you are likely to get.
the only way I can imagine is to use NAT on both pathes which would create an entry for each communication. Whether this is really what you want (NAT) I cannot tell. What is the problem with normal routing/load sharing you encounter or try to fix?
We are pleased to announce availability of Beta software for 16.6.3.
16.6.3 will be the second rebuild on the 16.6 release train targeted
towards Catalyst 9500/9400/9300/3850/3650 switching platforms. We are
looking for early feedback from customers befor...
Introduction Featured Speakers Luis Espejel is the Telecommunications
Manager of IENova, an Oil & Gas company. Currently he works with Cisco
IOS® and Cisco IOS XE platforms, and NX to some extent. He has also
worked as a Senior Engineer with the Routing P...
In this session you can learn more about Layer 3 multicast and the best
practices to identify possible threats and take security measures. It
provides an overview of basic multicast, the best security practices for
use of this technology, and recommendati...