Load Balancing / Load Sharing over parallel paths

Discussion in 'Cisco' started by ciscortp@hotmail.com, Nov 21, 2005.

  1. Guest

    I have two parallel paths between a pair of routers. They are running
    Eigrp between them. The bandwidths are very close to each other (704K
    and 768K) so Eigrp Unequal cost load balancing doesn't really help me
    because the traffic share count is usually 1 to 1.

    I could get around this by altering the delay of one of the links and
    then maybe have a trafic share count of 2 to 1.

    I've tried per packet load balancing but because of the varying
    latencies in each link, that doesn't work out too well for me.

    What I would like to do is have a way of preferring the faster (less
    latency) link until the bandwidth reaches a certain point, then
    allowing the slower (greater latency) link to kick in.

    The reason being is that sometimes 1 user will download a huge file
    which will consume the entire bandwidth of 1 one link. Other users
    will try to connect and because of typical per session or per
    destination load balancing, they will attempt to also use the congested
    link. I would like to avoid this. I want a way to set a threshold
    for a particular link by % utilization, then put that link on hold
    until the % util drops below a certain point.

    If anyone sees what I mean here and has a solution, that would be
    greatly appreciated.

    Thank You
     
    , Nov 21, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. In article <>,
    <> wrote:
    >I have two parallel paths between a pair of routers. They are running
    >Eigrp between them. The bandwidths are very close to each other (704K
    >and 768K) so Eigrp Unequal cost load balancing doesn't really help me
    >because the traffic share count is usually 1 to 1.
    >
    >I could get around this by altering the delay of one of the links and
    >then maybe have a trafic share count of 2 to 1.
    >
    >I've tried per packet load balancing but because of the varying
    >latencies in each link, that doesn't work out too well for me.
    >
    >What I would like to do is have a way of preferring the faster (less
    >latency) link until the bandwidth reaches a certain point, then
    >allowing the slower (greater latency) link to kick in.
    >
    >The reason being is that sometimes 1 user will download a huge file
    >which will consume the entire bandwidth of 1 one link. Other users
    >will try to connect and because of typical per session or per
    >destination load balancing, they will attempt to also use the congested
    >link. I would like to avoid this. I want a way to set a threshold
    >for a particular link by % utilization, then put that link on hold
    >until the % util drops below a certain point.
    >
    >If anyone sees what I mean here and has a solution, that would be
    >greatly appreciated.
    >
    >Thank You


    If the problem is a single FTP transfer, it sounds like weighted
    fair queueing (WFQ) is not doing its thing. Could be because WFQ
    has been disabled (or something about the configuration disables
    it by default), or you may need to add traffic shaping on the links
    to give WFQ a chance to kick in before the link is totally clogged.

    Good luck and have fun!
    --
    Vincent C Jones, Consultant Expert advice and a helping hand
    Networking Unlimited, Inc. for those who want to manage and
    Tenafly, NJ Phone: 201 568-7810 control their networking destiny
    http://www.networkingunlimited.com
     
    Vincent C Jones, Nov 21, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Alex A
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    620
    Alex A
    Feb 13, 2004
  2. Rob
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    4,567
    Terry Baranski
    Feb 21, 2004
  3. Replies:
    1
    Views:
    522
    PepeRdguez
    Jun 21, 2006
  4. nmilford
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    614
    nmilford
    Nov 21, 2007
  5. palas_123
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    2,188
    donjohnston
    Dec 28, 2009
Loading...

Share This Page