EIGRP provides a mechanism to load balance over unequal cost paths throungh Variance Command. Variance is a number (1 to 128), multiplied by the local best metric then includes the routes with the lesser or equal metric. The default Variance value is 1, which means equal-cost load balancing.
A condition, Feasibility Condition, must be met for all routes to be installed in routing table via Variance Command.
What is Feasibility Condition?
If, for a destination, a neighbour router advertises a distance that is stricktly lower than our feasible distance, then this neighbour lies on a loop free route to this destination.
Understanding of EIGRP routing protocol
In this document we are trying to understand the feasibility condition and the working of variance command. All routers depcited in the topology diagram are configured with EIGRP routing protocol. The Lo3 address (220.127.116.11/32) is redistributed in EIGRP via redistribute connected command under the EIGRP process.
Router R1 has three paths to the route 18.104.22.168/32
Specifically, we have used different interface selection to provide unequal cost.
With default configuration, the route R1-R2-R3 is chosen over the others as the overall metric of this path is less as compared to that of the paths. Please see the output of the command "show ip route eigrp".
So far so good. Everything is working as expected.
As we desire, EIGRP with load balancing functionality, the route 22.214.171.124/32 should be available with R1 via R4 and R5. We verify the minimum and the maximum cost to reach 126.96.36.199 network from R1 via command "show ip eigrp topology all-links". R1 from its EIGRP topology table is learning the route 188.8.131.52/32 from all the sources but installed the route learned via neighbour R2 in its routing table.
The lowest metric is 435200 (that of path R1-R2-R3) and the maximum 2809856 (that of path R1-R5-R3).
Doing a small calculation to find the variance number, 2809856/435200 = 6.4567. I wil use a variance value of 7. Now 7*435200 = 3046400, routes with metric less than this value should be included.
On configuring command "variance 7" under EIGRP process, the route 184.108.40.206/32 now has two sources, R2 and R4. This can be verified by command "show ip route eigrp" on R1.
The output is not what we desired, the expected result was route 220.127.116.11 to be available from all the three neighbours i.e. R2, R4 and R5. Why the route from R4 was included and the route R5 discarded?
For R1 and R4
If, for a destination (18.104.22.168), a neighbour router (R4) advertises a distance (409600) that is stricktly lower than our feasible distance (435200), then this neighbour lies on a loop free route to this destination.
Metric learned from R4 (2323456) < Metric Calculated via Variance Multiplier (3046400)
For R1 and R5, this condition is not met as R5 advertises a distance 2297856 which is much higher that the feasible distance (435200) on R1.
Note: Even though the overall metric from R5 (2323456) is less than the Metric Calculated via Variance Multiplier (3046400), the route 22.214.171.124 is discarded as it does not meet the Feasibility Condition.
Sadly today I have completed my first (of many schedule) Cisco-Aruba migrations and I am quite amazed how similar the cli of Aruba is to Cisco surely cisco software is proprietary features to name a few like hsrp - cdp , AAA are the same&...
Hello I have a 2 X 9500 switch as a distribution switch separated in Data center 1 and 2 by virtual stack link between them, and 9300 on access layer on site 1, I want to build a ether channel between them The length between Site 1 t...
We have a pair of Cisco Nexus 93240s as our Core switches with VRRP running between them for our SVIs. We are trying to add a secondary subnet to one of the SVIs, where the primary subnet will only be used with static/manual dhcp addresses for the end dev...
Dear Experts, I have configured 3 VLANs on 3750 switch. VLAN 5,100,200 respectively. VLAN 5 is connected to internet.VLAN 200 for clients.Added route to internet 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 192.168.1.1C 192.168.1.0/24 is directly connected, Vlan5S* 0.0.0.0/0 [1/0] vi...
I will have to replace our old core Cisco switch C4506-E with two new core switches C9500 that will be located in two different server rooms. Currently there is one server room and our current core switch is connected to few ESXi hosts, storage, 2 fi...