[46673] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Load balancing in routers
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Chris Woodfield)
Mon Apr 8 12:33:45 2002
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2002 12:30:31 -0400
From: Chris Woodfield <rekoil@semihuman.com>
To: Paul Vixie <vixie@vix.com>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
Message-ID: <20020408163031.GB7723@semihuman.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;
protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="BOKacYhQ+x31HxR3"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <g3y9fygqnb.fsf@as.vix.com>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
--BOKacYhQ+x31HxR3
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
If by "round-robin" you mean by destination only, then this is correct. How=
ever, if=20
you strict per-packet load sharing regardless of flow, then CEF does have t=
his=20
capability, although the default behavior is the flow-based load sharing yo=
u describe.=20
http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/software/ios120/12cgcr/swit=
ch_c/xcprt2/xccefc.htm#33184
However, IIRC, code stability issues have plagued this feature in many IOS=
=20
releases; I recall Intermedia selling a "bonded T1" product that used this =
feature, and=20
supporting it was...not pleasant.
-C
> We used CEF in 11.x and it behaved the same way. It was never round-robin
> in any way we could observe.
--BOKacYhQ+x31HxR3
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org
iD8DBQE8scWnqP/YiunDNcERAsZMAKDBqDhf7sFi8Y7Zqt0ZxHtnbf9XBgCg5LWw
XUCoRD0golmDUjew3CnMVrQ=
=vwyA
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--BOKacYhQ+x31HxR3--
