The problem is that when I configure the router with the calculated variance, I don't get the 56K route. There must be a rule I am overlooking.
Pierre-Alex -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 5:57 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: IGRP Unequal load balancing CHALLENGE [7:31693] I think that you are correct on the variance. As for the unequal cost load balancing, I'm pretty sure that IGRP is just like EIGRP. The number of packets per link is calculated something like: worst metric / worst metric = 1 worst metric / better metric = some n > 1 I think you also have to issue the 'traffic-share balanced' router config commmand. I can't say for sure if it is acually packets or destinations that get balanced. All of the Cisco literature seems to suggest packets. PROBLEM: 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=31702&t=31693 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
