On Fri, Jun 03, 2005 at 04:21:09PM -0400, Michael W. Oliver wrote:
> there used to be patches floating around for 4.x that would allow a kind
> of metric, but IIRC you couldn't use two (or more) same-metric routes
> for per-packet balancing, rather the metric would be degraded for each
> packet tha
On Fri, 3 Jun 2005, Charlie Schluting wrote:
Reason #2 is latency. Vendor C put a lot of time and money into
features like CEF that take advantage of hardware packet forwarding. A
purely software-based device simply can't keep up with large flows,
and definitely introduces latency--especially wh
On Jun 03 at 16:21, Michael W. Oliver spoke:
> On 2005-06-03T22:13:51+0300, Ruslan Ermilov wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 03, 2005 at 08:16:36PM +0200, Hanspeter Roth wrote:
> >> Hello,
>
> >> I thought it is possible to have routes to the same destination but
> >> with a different metric. But I can't
> it would be nice to have a feature like this, where you could have
> multiple same-prefix, same-metric routes in a FIB, and the packets would
> be balanced to the next hop, either on a per-flow or per-packet basis.
> i have seen a lot of answers to this request over the years along the
> lines of
On Fri, Jun 03, 2005 at 04:21:09PM -0400, Michael W. Oliver wrote:
> it would be nice to have a feature like this, where you could have
> multiple same-prefix, same-metric routes in a FIB, and the packets would
> be balanced to the next hop, either on a per-flow or per-packet basis.
>
This is alre
On 2005-06-03T22:13:51+0300, Ruslan Ermilov wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 03, 2005 at 08:16:36PM +0200, Hanspeter Roth wrote:
>> Hello,
>> I thought it is possible to have routes to the same destination but
>> with a different metric. But I can't find how to set the metric in
>> the route manpage.
>> How i
On Fri, Jun 03, 2005 at 08:16:36PM +0200, Hanspeter Roth wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I thought it is possible to have routes to the same destination but
> with a different metric. But I can't find how to set the metric in
> the route manpage.
> How is a metric for a route set?
>
We don't support that at
