[46678] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Load balancing in routers
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Eric Osborne)
Mon Apr 8 13:37:16 2002
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2002 13:36:44 -0400
From: Eric Osborne <eosborne@cisco.com>
To: Steve Francis <steve@expertcity.com>
Cc: Richard A Steenbergen <ras@e-gerbil.net>,
abhijit bare <abhi1999us@yahoo.com>, nanog@merit.edu
Message-ID: <20020408133643.M14350@eosborne-u10.cisco.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <3CB10958.A698271F@expertcity.com>; from steve@expertcity.com on Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 08:07:04PM -0700
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 08:07:04PM -0700, Steve Francis wrote:
>
>
>
> Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
>
> > In order to do more advanced
> > things, such as non-equal capacity load balancing, you need to have
> > knowledge of the "load" on a link (or the servers in the case of 4-7 load
> > balancers). This is something that "routers" have typically avoided, and
> > I'm not aware of any router vendors who attempt to do load balancing based
> > on the load of a link.
> >
>
> cisco's EIGRP can do it, but it is disalbed by default, and not recommended.
EIGRP is certainly off by default, as are all routing protocols. You
may not recommend it, but we have lots of customers who like it; it's
not like _cisco_ doesn't recommend it.
There's another way to do this with MPLS-TE, but not everybody likes
that, either. :)
eric
