Skip to main content
added 715 characters in body
Source Link

Cisco manages traffic through what they call a "flow". When traffic arrives, it is evaluated for the 5 tuple:

  • Protocol (TCP, UDP, ICMP, OSPF, EIGRP)
  • Source IP address
  • Source Port
  • Destination IP address
  • Destination Port

All subsequent traffic that is identified as part of an existing flow is sent across the same link to avoid out-of-order packet (like a voice conversation that is UDP without sequence numbers). In the case of load balancing, it's effectively assigning each flow round robin.

If you ping, while watching a youtube video, the ICMP response may alternate between links due to the fact that ICMP is stateless, while watching a youtube video is essentially pinned to a link.

Both EIGRP and OSPF support Equal Cost Load Balancing.

EIGRP supports unequal cost load balancing, but it must pass the feasibility condition which in small environments usually fails; and the alternate route ends up unused.

Here in OSPF, the Cost is 2 for both routes. Therefore traffic will flow equally through both

[110/2] via 10.1.3.2, 00:00:02, FastEthernet1/0

[110/2] via 10.1.2.2, 00:00:02, FastEthernet0/0

Here in EIGRP, the cost is 30720 for both routes. Therefore traffic will flow equally through both [90/30720] via 10.1.3.2, 00:00:17, FastEthernet1/0

[90/30720] via 10.1.2.2, 00:00:17, FastEthernet0/0

Both EIGRP and OSPF support Equal Cost Load Balancing.

EIGRP supports unequal cost load balancing, but it must pass the feasibility condition which in small environments usually fails; and the alternate route ends up unused.

Here in OSPF, the Cost is 2 for both routes. Therefore traffic will flow equally through both

[110/2] via 10.1.3.2, 00:00:02, FastEthernet1/0

[110/2] via 10.1.2.2, 00:00:02, FastEthernet0/0

Here in EIGRP, the cost is 30720 for both routes. Therefore traffic will flow equally through both [90/30720] via 10.1.3.2, 00:00:17, FastEthernet1/0

[90/30720] via 10.1.2.2, 00:00:17, FastEthernet0/0

Cisco manages traffic through what they call a "flow". When traffic arrives, it is evaluated for the 5 tuple:

  • Protocol (TCP, UDP, ICMP, OSPF, EIGRP)
  • Source IP address
  • Source Port
  • Destination IP address
  • Destination Port

All subsequent traffic that is identified as part of an existing flow is sent across the same link to avoid out-of-order packet (like a voice conversation that is UDP without sequence numbers). In the case of load balancing, it's effectively assigning each flow round robin.

If you ping, while watching a youtube video, the ICMP response may alternate between links due to the fact that ICMP is stateless, while watching a youtube video is essentially pinned to a link.

Both EIGRP and OSPF support Equal Cost Load Balancing.

EIGRP supports unequal cost load balancing, but it must pass the feasibility condition which in small environments usually fails; and the alternate route ends up unused.

Here in OSPF, the Cost is 2 for both routes. Therefore traffic will flow equally through both

[110/2] via 10.1.3.2, 00:00:02, FastEthernet1/0

[110/2] via 10.1.2.2, 00:00:02, FastEthernet0/0

Here in EIGRP, the cost is 30720 for both routes. Therefore traffic will flow equally through both [90/30720] via 10.1.3.2, 00:00:17, FastEthernet1/0

[90/30720] via 10.1.2.2, 00:00:17, FastEthernet0/0

added 4 characters in body
Source Link

Both EIGRP and OSPF support Equal Cost Load Balancing.

EIGRP supports unequal cost load balancing, but it must pass the feasibility condition which in small environments usually fails; and the alternate route ends up unused.

Here in OSPF, the Cost is 2 for both routes. Therefore traffic will flow equally through both

[110/2] via 10.1.3.2, 00:00:02, FastEthernet1/0 [110

[110/2] via 10.1.2.2, 00:00:02, FastEthernet0/0

Here in EIGRP, the cost is 30720 for both routes. Therefore traffic will flow equally through both [90/30720] via 10.1.3.2, 00:00:17, FastEthernet1/0 [90

[90/30720] via 10.1.2.2, 00:00:17, FastEthernet0/0

Both EIGRP and OSPF support Equal Cost Load Balancing.

EIGRP supports unequal cost load balancing, but it must pass the feasibility condition which in small environments usually fails; and the alternate route ends up unused.

Here in OSPF, the Cost is 2 for both routes. Therefore traffic will flow equally through both

[110/2] via 10.1.3.2, 00:00:02, FastEthernet1/0 [110/2] via 10.1.2.2, 00:00:02, FastEthernet0/0

Here in EIGRP, the cost is 30720 for both routes. Therefore traffic will flow equally through both [90/30720] via 10.1.3.2, 00:00:17, FastEthernet1/0 [90/30720] via 10.1.2.2, 00:00:17, FastEthernet0/0

Both EIGRP and OSPF support Equal Cost Load Balancing.

EIGRP supports unequal cost load balancing, but it must pass the feasibility condition which in small environments usually fails; and the alternate route ends up unused.

Here in OSPF, the Cost is 2 for both routes. Therefore traffic will flow equally through both

[110/2] via 10.1.3.2, 00:00:02, FastEthernet1/0

[110/2] via 10.1.2.2, 00:00:02, FastEthernet0/0

Here in EIGRP, the cost is 30720 for both routes. Therefore traffic will flow equally through both [90/30720] via 10.1.3.2, 00:00:17, FastEthernet1/0

[90/30720] via 10.1.2.2, 00:00:17, FastEthernet0/0

Source Link

Both EIGRP and OSPF support Equal Cost Load Balancing.

EIGRP supports unequal cost load balancing, but it must pass the feasibility condition which in small environments usually fails; and the alternate route ends up unused.

Here in OSPF, the Cost is 2 for both routes. Therefore traffic will flow equally through both

[110/2] via 10.1.3.2, 00:00:02, FastEthernet1/0 [110/2] via 10.1.2.2, 00:00:02, FastEthernet0/0

Here in EIGRP, the cost is 30720 for both routes. Therefore traffic will flow equally through both [90/30720] via 10.1.3.2, 00:00:17, FastEthernet1/0 [90/30720] via 10.1.2.2, 00:00:17, FastEthernet0/0