Yes... that's true.... it's not true load balancing.... but it let's call it load "sharing"... =)
Actually, of the many things we consider load balancing, many aren't true load balancing but a load sharing that under certain circumstances could be equal.... like Etherchannel and EIGRP (and other routing protocols) load "balancing".. Even under the best configuration Etherchannel has to rely on the source and/or destination MAC or IP addresses to determine which "pipe" it takes, unless the statistics of IP and/or MAC addr distribution close to "random", Etherchannel isn't true balancing. For "equal-cost load balancing" with routing protocols, if you're using fast-switching, you only get per-destination load balancing, not per packet. To get per-packet load balancing, you must disable fast switching (i.e. use process switching... ewww).... So if you have a router at a remote site with two T1s back to the home office where the server is, if most of your traffic is PCs talking to the server, then all of that traffic to that server will choose one of the two T1s (per-destination) and leave the other relatively unused unless you enable process-switching...... (see http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/105/46.html) It appears that CEF is an exception that can indeed do per-packet load-balancing without a hit in performance (process switching).... by default it allows up to 4 paths (1 for BGP) but can be changed... (see http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/cc/pd/ifaa/pa/much/tech/althb_wp.htm) (watch for URL wrap) As for Multilink PPP, I can't find any documentation on Cisco's site or otherwise that specifically says that it does per-packet load balancing, however, one of the functions of MLPPP is that it can perform fragmentation and reassembly of packets over a given size, so if it can do that, I would assume that it can do per-packet load balancing....... Anyway...... weren't looking for that long winded response, were ya? =) Mike W. "Sean Knox" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > Correct me if I'm wrong, but VLAN priorization isn't really load balancing- > you are just forcing VLANS over a preselected path. It does not take into > consideration that one VLAN may utilize more bandwidth than another. > > Sean > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of > > MADMAN > > Sent: Friday, May 03, 2002 3:05 PM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: Re: VLAN Load balancing [7:43265] > > > > > > Yes. An example would be two core 6500 trunked together. You have > > switches in the closets, one uplink to 6500A the other to 6500B. Set > > priority on even VLAN/s to A odd to B. > > > > Dave > > > > "Steven A. Ridder" wrote: > > > > > > Does anyone do any VLAN load balancing via STP in the real > > world? I've > > > never seen it yet, and am just curious if it's ever done. > > > > > > -- > > > > > > RFC 1149 Compliant. > > > Get in my head: > > > http://sar.dynu.com > > -- > > David Madland > > Sr. Network Engineer > > CCIE# 2016 > > Qwest Communications Int. Inc. > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > 612-664-3367 > > > > "Emotion should reflect reason not guide it" > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=43280&t=43265 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
