Comments on: EIGRP Load balancing without using variance http://ccnprecertification.com/2005/09/16/eigrp-load-balancing-without-using-variance/ Study notes for the Cisco CCNP exam Fri, 27 Aug 2010 15:05:53 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: shoguns2001 http://ccnprecertification.com/2005/09/16/eigrp-load-balancing-without-using-variance/comment-page-1/#comment-91907 shoguns2001 Mon, 20 Apr 2009 10:39:43 +0000 http://ertw.com/ccnp/2005/09/16/eigrp-load-balancing-without-using-variance/#comment-91907 awesome reply awesome reply

]]> By: Paul Sandys http://ccnprecertification.com/2005/09/16/eigrp-load-balancing-without-using-variance/comment-page-1/#comment-8 Paul Sandys Fri, 27 Jan 2006 05:47:48 +0000 http://ertw.com/ccnp/2005/09/16/eigrp-load-balancing-without-using-variance/#comment-8 You can also modify the T0 through T5 EIGRP parameters to get rid of the delay multiplier - saves a lot of aggravation when trying to match the metrics. P. You can also modify the T0 through T5 EIGRP parameters to get rid of the delay multiplier – saves a lot of aggravation when trying to match the metrics.

P.

]]> By: Cisco Forum http://ccnprecertification.com/2005/09/16/eigrp-load-balancing-without-using-variance/comment-page-1/#comment-6 Cisco Forum Thu, 19 Jan 2006 20:30:55 +0000 http://ertw.com/ccnp/2005/09/16/eigrp-load-balancing-without-using-variance/#comment-6 Assuming they are adjacent wouldnt just using CEF and per packet distribution on both end accomplish this as well? Assuming they are adjacent wouldnt just using CEF and per packet distribution on both end accomplish this as well?

]]> By: cisco forum http://ccnprecertification.com/2005/09/16/eigrp-load-balancing-without-using-variance/comment-page-1/#comment-5 cisco forum Thu, 19 Jan 2006 20:29:30 +0000 http://ertw.com/ccnp/2005/09/16/eigrp-load-balancing-without-using-variance/#comment-5 Assuming they are adjacent wouldnt just using CEF and per packet distribution on both end accomplish this as well? Assuming they are adjacent wouldnt just using CEF and per packet distribution on both end accomplish this as well?

]]>