From: sumit.kumar@comcast.net
Date: Fri Jun 03 2005 - 19:02:57 GMT-3
Try ML-PPP.
-------------- Original message --------------
> We have been told the voice traffic would not work well with per packet.
> We will probably try per packet anyway.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lupi, Guy [mailto:Guy.Lupi@eurekanetworks.net]
> Sent: Friday, June 03, 2005 4:25 PM
> To: Tim Bonnell; ccielab@groupstudy.com
> Subject: RE: load balancing problem
>
> What about per packet load sharing instead? Is there a reason you can't
> use
> it?
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tim.Bonnell@argosy.com [mailto:Tim.Bonnell@argosy.com]
> Sent: Friday, June 03, 2005 5:24 PM
> To: Lupi, Guy; ccielab@groupstudy.com
> Subject: RE: load balancing problem
>
> Yes, so to speak. We manually generate the traffic with separate file
> copies
> and/or ftp sessions along with any other traffic that may be on the
> circuits
> at the time. The file copies and ftp transfers are different sessions.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lupi, Guy [mailto:Guy.Lupi@eurekanetworks.net]
> Sent: Friday, June 03, 2005 4:16 PM
> To: Tim Bonnell; ccielab@groupstudy.com
> Subject: RE: load balancing problem
>
> Is 90% of the traffic from the 3640 LAN to the 7513 LAN between the same
> source and destination pair?
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
> Tim.Bonnell@argosy.com
> Sent: Friday, June 03, 2005 5:01 PM
> To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
> Subject: load balancing problem
>
> We have an issue that seems to have no resolution.
>
>
>
> We have a 7513 and 3640 connected using 2 T1 serial links. EIGRP, IP
> CEF
> per destination load sharing, and LLQ for voice traffic are configured.
> The
> EIGRP metrics indicate that the links are indeed equal.
>
>
>
> LAN traffic behind the 7513 going to the LAN behind the 3640 seems to be
> load balance, within reason. LAN traffic behind the 3640 going to the
> LAN
> behind the 7513 favors one of the links 90% of the time. So the traffic
> is
> not load sharing like it should.
>
>
>
> Routing and CEF tables look fine. Just can't find an explanation as why
> the
> traffic is favoring only one of the links.
>
>
>
> Opened TAC case - but they said it should be working and are researching
> the
> issue.
>
>
>
> Ever see anything like this before? Any troubleshooting commands that
> would
> help identify the cause?
>
>
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Tim
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> Subscription information may be found at:
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> Subscription information may be found at:
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Jul 06 2005 - 14:43:40 GMT-3