Load balancing traffic 1

[bdragun]

I have 2 sites, a Cisco 2600 at one site and a 3600 at the other. There was one t1 running between the sites, but since we wanted to make the pipe bigger we added a second one. I am trying to load balance the traffic over both t1's. Right now the majority of the traffic is just going over one of them and sending lite traffic over the other.
Any way I can equally balance the traffic over both t1's?

 

[lgarner]

Try
Router(config)# ip cef
and then (on each involved interface):
Router(config-if)# ip load-sharing per-packet

At least that's how our ISP had me set it up, and it works just fine.

EIGRP is supposed to be able to do it, but I have read of issues where it balances per-destination, not per-packet in some cases. Cef seems to take care of it.

 

[ashish1542]

Seems to me as if fast switching has been configured on your router. Most routers have fast switching enabled. The problem with fast switching is that it load-balances on destination basis. If you want equal cost load balancing, you could try ip ce, or what u could do is configure a multilink interface and make both ur T1's a part of the multilink, that way you need to assign only ip address to the multilink interface, and it should also take care to your load-balancing problem.

I hope that solves ur problem

 

[bdragun]

I tried lgarner suggestion and it seems to be working like a charm now. But Orginally I wanted to do equal cost load balancing. I still would like to know how to do it.
We are running EIGRP and I config t.
Then i go to Router Eigrp but when i try to add:
Variance 1
Traffic-Share Balanced

It does not stay.

I do have Auto-Summary turned on. Does this need to be turned off?

 

[jato]

EIGRP enables equal-cost load balancing by default for up to four routes. You do not see the variance 1 command in your config because that is the default value and therefore will not be displayed - the command is only needed when performing unequal cost load balancing. Auto-summary is an unrelated feature that is responsible for advertising your networks at classful boundaries in routing advertisements. It wouldn't have any impact in this scenario.

Jato

 

[NetOpsTech]

I have had success with cef also.

 

[bdragun]

That be how that works but it is not working in our case. Traffic is running over one T1 and not blancing at all. Is there a command I have to put in to make it balance?

 

[gaveeve]

Look at the show ip route command and see what the administrative distance is for the routes. They should be the same for the two routes you want to balance. As far as the varience command goes I think you have to have at least 2 for a value for it to register routes of greater administrative distance.
I would put in a static route for each route and the same admin distance tacked onto the end.

 

[nyy1023]

I think we need to address one major misconception.
there is no such thing as load balance.
It is a load share because you cannot get 50/50 balance on the networks, I do know that you can get close to it, but it is more appropriate to say share.
One simple way is to make sure you have two equal weight static routes as long as you are coming out of the same pop.
Another is to split the blocks and add route-map statements. Specify x.x.x.0 x.x.x.0/25 metric 0 and x.x.x.128 x.x.x.128/25 metric of 10 on s0.1
and vice versa on the other serial.
Or CEF is another alternative, but may cause problems if you do not know what you are doing and the ISP may not allow it.
Or BGP, but I would recommend not running BGP if you are not familiar with it or do not have at least 256 of memory