Assuming that you have a router at home that you can plug both the cable
modem and DSL in. If you only need to get hold of a specific IP (game
server ) throught the DSL while everything else through the Cable, you could
simply configure default route for the Cable while adding a static route for
the game server IP with the DSL ip as gateway.
However, it would be more complicated if you want to load balancing using
different port numbers. You probably would have to setup something like
policy routing to achieve this.
Richard
""Justin Emilio"" wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> I have a home lab that I use for studying and I work for a DSL company. I
> have a cable modem connection that gets great download speeds (Like 3Mbps)
> but has horrible latency. I love to play video games that require low ping
> times. To take care of this my company gives me dsl for free, so I have
> cable modem for downloading and other internet uses and DSL for video
games.
> Anyways, my question is this: how could I implement some sort of load
> balancing feature that would allow me to play games (I know the ports they
> use) over the DSL line, and everything else on the cable modem?
>
>
> Justin Emilio
> Tech Support
> CCNP, CCNA, CCDA, CSE
> MM Internet 888-654-4971
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "John Neiberger"
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2001 3:02 PM
> Subject: More about Route Caching [7:8255]
>
>
> > Since we were discussing fast switching earlier I thought I'd post
> > something I found on CCO that was really interesting. At least I think
> > it's interesting, and it would be good to understand this for
> > troubleshooting purposes. Or troubleshooting porpoises. Either one.
> > :-)
> >
> >
> >
> > Packet Routing When Using Both Fast Switching and Process Switching
> >
> > Question: I have four equal cost parallel paths to the same
> > destination. I am doing fast switching on two links and process
> > switching on the other two. How will the packets be routed in this
> > situation?
> >
> > Answer:
> >
> > Assuming that there are four equal cost paths to some set of IP
> > networks, with
> >
> > interfaces one and two fast switching, and three and four not, the
> > router will:
> >
> >
> >
> > Establish the four equal cost paths in a list. Call them path 1, 2, 3,
> > and 4.
> >
> > When you do a show ip route x.x.x.x, the four "next hops" to "x.x.x.x"
> >
> > will display.
> >
> >
> > Start with the pointer, called the "interface_pointer" on interface 1.
> > The
> >
> > "interface_pointer" cycles through the interfaces in some orderly
> > fashion, such
> >
> > as 1-2-3-4-1-2-3-4-1, and so on. The output of show ip route x.x.x.x
> > will
> >
> > include a "*" to the left of the "next hop" that the
> > "interface_pointer" will use
> >
> > for a destination address not found in the cache. Each time that the
> > "interface_
> >
> > pointer" is used, it advances to the next interface.
> >
> >
> >
> > To illustrate this, repeat the following loop:
> >
> > A packet comes in, destined for a network serviced by the four
> > parallel paths.
> >
> > Check to see if it is in the cache. (The cache starts off empty.)
> >
> > If it is in the cache, send it to the interface stored in the cache.
> >
> > Otherwise, send it to the interface where the "interface_pointer" is
> > and
> > move the "interface_pointer" to the next interface in the list.
> >
> > If the interface over which we just sent the packet is running
> > route-cache, populate the cache with that interface id and the
> > destination
> > IP address.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Over time, the interfaces running route-cache will carry all the
> > traffic except
> >
> > destinations not in the cache. In the case of two route-cache and two
> >
> >
> > non-route cache, there is a fifty percent chance that an uncached entry
> > will hit
> >
> > an interface that caches entries, thereby nailing that destination to
> > that
> >
> > interface.
> >
> >
> >
> > Also, if no interface is running route-cache, the traffic will
> > round-robin on a
> >
> > packet-by-packet basis. The result is that either all have route-cache
> > or no
> >
> > route-cache on all interfaces in parallel paths, or expect that the
> > interfaces
> >
> > with caching enabled will carry all of the traffic over time.
Message Posted at:
http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=8261&t=8260
--------------------------------------------------
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
