Alternatively if you are using BGP, have a look at BGP Link Bandwidth http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/ios/12_2t/12_2t2/feature/guide/ftbgplb.html
On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 5:32 PM, Tony <td_mi...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > Hi Andy, > > What do you run as IGP then so that we can help you out ? > > If static routes, then you can do it using by having multiple routes that > are to the same destination. > > eg. on 2x serial links you might have: > > serial1 = 200Mbps (10.1.1.1/30) > serial2 = 100Mbps (10.1.1.5/3) > > You would then add static routes like this: > ip route x y serial1 > ip route x y 10.1.1.2 > ip route x y serial2 > > This way when you do "show ip route x" you would see something like: > > * directly connected via serial1 > Route metric is 0, traffic share count is 1 > * directly connected via serial2 > Route metric is 0, traffic share count is 1 > * 10.1.1.2 > Route metric is 0, traffic share count is 1 > > Your router would then divide the traffic into three with one third going > to each of the destinations configured. The fact that two of those > destinations are the same link means that two thirds will go down your > 200Mbps link and one third down your 100Mbps link. > > This is fairly basic and doesn't scale very well, but will work. > > > regards, > Tony. > > > --- On Mon, 16/2/09, Andy Saykao <andy.say...@staff.netspace.net.au> > wrote: > > > From: Andy Saykao <andy.say...@staff.netspace.net.au> > > Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Load Balancing of Unequal Ethernet Bandwidth > > To: "Ben Steele" <illcrit...@gmail.com> > > Cc: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net > > Date: Monday, 16 February, 2009, 5:39 PM > > Hi Ben, > > > > When I googled around, there were many discussions abvout > > using the > > variance command with eigrp but we don't run eigrp > > internally as our > > IGP. > > > > This is a typical setup where we need to upgrade some of > > our links, so > > we might upgrade 50M on the second leg and end up with a > > situation where > > the first leg is100M and the second leg is 150M. As you may > > know, some > > providers aren't so flexible so you can't just > > upgrade 25M on each leg > > because they increment by 50M per leg only. Hence my > > question if it was > > possible to load balance across unequal ethernet circuits > > without buying > > additional bandwidth for both circuits. > > > > Thanks. > > > > Andy > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > > From: Ben Steele [mailto:illcrit...@gmail.com] > > Sent: Monday, 16 February 2009 5:29 PM > > To: Andy Saykao > > Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Load Balancing of Unequal Ethernet > > Bandwidth > > > > > > You could do this with variance in eigrp, just add variance > > 2 into the > > eigrp config and it will load balance on a 2:1 ratio, if > > your links are > > equally matched in terms of latency you can look at > > enabling per-packet > > load sharing on the 2 egress interfaces to get an even more > > granular > > distribution, this can wreck some havoc with unequal paths > > and out of > > sequence packets though, however if equally similar in > > characteristics > > then performance is usually very good. > > > > Ben > > > > > > On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 4:01 PM, Andy Saykao > > <andy.say...@staff.netspace.net.au> wrote: > > > > > > Is it possible to aggregate and then load balance unequal > > ethernet > > circuits like so: > > > > I have two ethenet circuits on my Cisco router. Both have > > equal > > costs to > > the next hop. > > > > Ethernet Circuit #1- 200M > > Ethernet Circuit #2 - 100M > > > > Can I aggregate both ethernet circuits so that the total > > amount > > of > > bandwidth available to the next hop is is 300M? > > Can I then load balance it so both circuits are equally > > utilized? > > > > For example... > > > > * If I have 150M of traffic flowing to the next hop then > > the > > router > > would spread the load across both links like so: > > > > 100M through Ethernet Circuit #1. > > 50M through Ethernet Circuit #2. > > > > * The formula to use for this would be something like: > > > > Utilization / Total Bandwidth = percentage of utilization > > required per > > link > > 150/300 = 0.5 > > > > 0.5 x bandwidth of Ethernet #1 = 0.5 x 200 = 100M > > 0.5 x bandwidth of Ethernet #1 = 0.5 x 100 = 50M > > > > * If there was a total of 250M of traffic flowing to the > > next > > hop, and > > applying the formula above, the router would work out that > > the > > load > > distributed across both ethernet links would be: > > > > 166M through Ethernet Circuit #1. > > 84M through Ethernet Circuit #2. > > > > Any ideas??? > > > > Thanks. > > > > Andy > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp > archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/ > _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/