Maybe I should RTFQ :-) Sorry, I had three links. Correction below:
As load is not taken in to consideration, when the per packet load balancing starts, wouldn't the packets be balanced equally between the two routes? So at anything above 112k of total throughput, the 56k link is maxing out? Thats my guess, and it is a guess! Gaz ""Gaz"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > As load is not taken in to consideration, when the per packet load balancing > starts, wouldn't the packets be balanced equally between the three routes? > So at anything above 168k of total throughput, the 56k link is maxing out? > > Thats my guess, and it is a guess! > > Gaz > > > > ""Pierre-Alex J. Guanel"" wrote in message > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > R1 > > // \ > > R2__R3 > > > > > > R1 and R2 are connected via a T1 link (Network ID: 10.2.1.0/24 > > AND a 56K link (Network ID: 10.2.2.0/24) > > R1 and R3 are connected via a T1 link (Network ID: 10.2.3.0/24 > > R2 and R3 are connected via ethernet (Network ID:10.1.4.0/24) > > > > R1, R2 and R3 are running IGRP 200 > > > > The goal is to configure R1 for unequal load balancing and see 2 routes > > for network 10.1.4.0 in the routing table. > > > > > > PROPOSED SOLUTION: > > > > From R1, the metric of the T1 route to 10.1.4.0 would be: > > > > delay bandwidth=(2000+100)+10^(7)/15440 = 8576 > > > > From R1, the metric of the 56K route to 10.1.4.0 would be: > > > > delay bandwidth=(2000+100)+10^(7)/56 = 180671 > > > > So the variance would be 22 because 180671/8576 = 21.07 > > > > > > On R1, we should configure the variance as 22 > > > > Does that look right? > > > > Pierre-Alex Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=31695&t=31693 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
