• Status: Solved
  • Priority: Medium
  • Security: Public
  • Views: 675
  • Last Modified:

Two Point-to-Point T1's connected through Cisco 2600 and 7260 using EIGRP, still only getting 1.5 Meg Transfer Rate

I recently added a second T1 to a clients 2600 router. After adding EIGRP on both routers I am getting routes that look like this in the 2600 router which I assume shows that the EIGRP is working.

D       64.95.209.4/30 [90/2195456] via 66.151.74.13, 18:08:21, Serial0/0
                       [90/2195456] via 66.151.74.45, 18:08:21, Serial0/1
D       64.95.208.0/24 [90/2195456] via 66.151.74.13, 18:08:21, Serial0/0
                       [90/2195456] via 66.151.74.45, 18:08:21, Serial0/1
     216.52.170.0/30 is subnetted, 1 subnets
D       216.52.170.136 [90/2172416] via 66.151.74.45, 18:13:08, Serial0/1
                       [90/2172416] via 66.151.74.13, 18:13:08, Serial0/0
     66.0.0.0/8 is variably subnetted, 38 subnets, 3 masks

But I am still only transfering at 1.5 Megs when I download from an FTP site on a server one hop away.  I was under the impression that EIGRP would allow me to combine the bandwidth of both pipes.
0
hgallagher
Asked:
hgallagher
  • 4
  • 4
  • 3
  • +1
1 Solution
 
Dr-IPCommented:
EIGRP by default does load balancing on a per IP address bases, in simplified terms host 1 will use the first T, host 2 will go though the second T, host 3 the first T, and so on. Since each host only goes though one T, the most bandwidth it will ever get is 1 T’s worth, IE 1.5 megs. You can change it to do per packet load sharing instead if you really want to have one host be able to use the full 2 T’s worth of bandwidth, sample below. Both sides need to be configured this way for it to work.

interface Serial1/0
 bandwidth 1536
 ip address 10.10.99.54 255.255.255.252
 ip load-sharing per-packet
!
interface Serial1/1
 bandwidth 1536
 ip address 10.10.99.50 255.255.255.252
 ip load-sharing per-packet
 
   
0
 
hgallagherAuthor Commented:
The 2600 router will not accept the "ip load-sharing per-packet" command.  I am running under IOS 11.3. Anything else I might try?
0
 
Dr-IPCommented:
I think you are out of luck with that old IOS, as any other thing I can think of it doesn’t support it either. So outside of an IOS upgrade your stuck with how it’s working now.
0
Industry Leaders: We Want Your Opinion!

We value your feedback.

Take our survey and automatically be enter to win anyone of the following:
Yeti Cooler, Amazon eGift Card, and Movie eGift Card!

 
minmeiCommented:
Can you do Multi-link PPP with 11.3?

Set both up as PPP endpoints and create a virtual interface that uses both...

dialer-list 1 protocol ip permit

interface Serial0/1:0
 no ip address
 encapsulation ppp
 load-interval 30
 ppp multilink
!
interface Virtual-Template1
 ip address x.y.z.a 255.255.255.252
 ppp authentication chap
 ppp multilink
!
interface Serial0/0:0
 no ip address
 encapsulation ppp
 load-interval 30
 ppp multilink
!
multilink virtual-template 1

Just a thought...
0
 
Dr-IPCommented:
Multilink PPP is the only other option I could think about, it was first introduced in 11.2 acording to Cisco, so it might be available, but it can be pretty processor intensive.
0
 
ZnalostCommented:
Hi hgallagher,
I tried to use ppp multilink with virtual-template but discovered lot of bugs (Cisco confirmed) with IOS 12.2 or older. We have been running 12.3.(9) for more than a year without any issues. Two 2600 against each other. We use ppp multilink and QoS (prioritize and shape the traffic).
I highly recommend upgrade of IOS as Dr-IP. Also I agree that ppp multilink is processor intensive.

Cheers!
0
 
Dr-IPCommented:
That might explain why it started getting popular around the time 12.2 came out. Until I looked the other day I thought it was added somewhere in the 12.x train, but it’s been there since the early 11’s. So I was kind of puzzled why I hadn’t seen it used a lot earlier, but if it was buggy that would explane why it didn’t get popular until after the 12.2 train came out.    
0
 
ZnalostCommented:
Hi hgallagher,
Do you have more questions or want to close this problem/thread?

Let us know.
 
Thanks
0
 
hgallagherAuthor Commented:
I have upgraded the router to 12.2(10) and turned on the "ip load-sharing per-packet" but it doesn't seem to be helping.  I am still only getting 1 T1's worth of traffic at a time.  I also added the command to both serial connections on the 7206 Router.  Any other suggestions or is there a test I can use other than FTP that might tell me something different.

One thing I noticed when I do a "sh int s0/0"  or "sh int s0/1" on the 2600 one line states "available bandwidth 1158 kilobits/sec"
0
 
ZnalostCommented:
How do you measure the speed? Would you like to try to use ppp multilink?
0
 
hgallagherAuthor Commented:
Shouldn't EIGRP work? I am using FTP to download a 2meg txt file to measure speed.  I might try PPP Multilink but how processor intensive is it?
0
 
ZnalostCommented:
OK, please give me the numbers to evaluate the ppp multilink option:
- file size (kb)
- transfer duration (seconds)
- result of IOS command 'show process cpu history' (last 60 secs, 60 minutes and 72 hours) right after transfer of the file
0
 
minmeiCommented:
Glad he thought of it. ;-)
0

Featured Post

Technology Partners: We Want Your Opinion!

We value your feedback.

Take our survey and automatically be enter to win anyone of the following:
Yeti Cooler, Amazon eGift Card, and Movie eGift Card!

  • 4
  • 4
  • 3
  • +1
Tackle projects and never again get stuck behind a technical roadblock.
Join Now