From: Richard Dumoulin (richard.dumoulin@vanco.es)
Date: Tue Jul 06 2004 - 19:28:50 GMT-3
what is the usage of the command "dlsw load-balance circuit-count" ?? -->
this is called enhanced load balancing. The other option os round robin
Do we need the "dlsw timer explorer-wait-time 100" ?? --> Yes, otherwise the
dlsw peer will use the first dlsw connection to answer his explorer
Why do we need promiscuous in the remote peers --> You don't need it but it
is more elegant
Does the previous fullfill the requirement ??? --> if your requirements are
exact than yes
-----Original Message-----
From: Karim [mailto:karim_ccie@hotmail.com]
Sent: martes, 06 de julio de 2004 23:58
To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: DLSw load balancing ???
Hi all,
Task is asking about balancing between two DLSw peers. No peering exists
between these two remote peers. Required to have unequal balancing with the
ratio 1:2 (i.e: one of the remote peers receives double what the other
receives).
From the Doc CD, I can get that we need:
On the local peer:
dlsw remote-peer 0 tcp x.y.z.v circuit weight 1
dlsw remote-peer 0 tcp r.t.r.z circuit weight 2
dlsw load-balance circuit-count
dlsw timer explorer-wait-time 100
On the remote peers:
Remote peer one:
dlsw local-peer x.y.z.v cost 1 promiscuous
Remote peer two:
dlsw local-peer r.t.r.z cost 1 promiscuous
http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/software/ios122/122cgcr/fibm
_
c/bcfpart2/bcfdlsw.htm#wp1003187
-- Does the previous fullfill the requirement ???
-- what is the usage of the command "dlsw load-balance circuit-count" ??
-- Do we need the "dlsw timer explorer-wait-time 100" ??
-- Why do we need promiscuous in the remote peers ??
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sun Aug 01 2004 - 10:11:48 GMT-3