I am working on a unequal path load balancing config for a customer consisting of 4 routers ..
I am trying to load balance destinations Networks on all 4 routers so looking at the "show ip ei topology all" reveals two listing to all destination Networks ..which is what I want. However, only one route ever makes it into the routing table even with using the "variance" command...
I know i havent pasted any configs but, does anything spring to mind at first bat?
There dont seem to be any feasbily condition issues either.. any ideas appreciated..
Have you set variance to a value high enough? It works like a multiplicator, i.e. it is a factor multiplied to the best metric at the time. Any entry into the routing table must have a metric better than the result.
Without more details this would be my only advice.
As Martin indicated the variance (value) you are using is probably not high enough to install the alternate route in the routing table. An example would make it easy to understand. Let's say you have the following route with 2 paths in the topology table. EIGRP, by default, would install only the best route, with metric of 5, in the routing table. However, if you set the variance to 3 (5*3), the next best route, with a metric of 14, would be installed as well. The goal here is to set the variance (#) at least to a certain level that would accommodate the alternate route(s).
Olumide has not given us much to work with. One thing that does come to mind for me when someone mentions difficulty with variance in EIGRP is that the inferior route must qualify as a feasible successor for variance to be able to put it into the routing table. Olumide says that he believes that there are no feasibility issues. But I would like him to confirm that the second route does qualify as a feasible successor. Posting the entries from the EIGRP topology table would be even better.
Thanks for posting the additional information. It does demonstrate that the issue is what I talked about in my previous post - it is a question of feasible distance and feasible successor. The information from the EIGRP topology table shows that each of the destination routes has a successor and no feasible successor. For variance to be able to put the second route into the routing table the advertised distance for the second route must be less than the feasible distance for the primary route. And they are not less for your routes. Using the first set of routes as an example:
P 10.192.2.252/30, 1 successors, FD is 30720, serno 114
via 10.192.2.133 (30720/28160), FastEthernet1/1
via 10.192.2.250 (33280/30720), FastEthernet1/0
we see that the feasible distance is 30720 and the advertised distance for the second route is 30720. Because the advertised distance is not less than the feasible distance then variance can not put the second route into the routing table.
I am not sure what you are indicating when you ask: see anything strange? Perhaps you can clarify what you are asking?
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.