Question

An engineer wants R1 to load-balance traffic to the 10.50.0.0/16 network across two EIGRP paths. The primary path via R2 has a feasible distance of 3072000, and the alternate path via R3 has a computed metric of 5120000 with a reported distance of 2560000. The engineer configures 'variance 2' under the EIGRP process, but the path through R3 is still not installed in the routing table. What is the reason R3's path is excluded?

Accepted Answer

R3's reported distance (2560000) is less than R1's feasible distance (3072000), making it a feasible successor, and 5120000 is within 2 x 3072000; the path should install, so the omission points to a 'traffic-share' or 'maximum-paths' limitation rather than variance.

Answer

R3's path is not a feasible successor because its reported distance (2560000) is not less than the feasible distance (3072000)... wait, it is less, so variance must be increased to at least 2.

Answer

R3's advertised metric (5120000) exceeds the feasible distance (3072000) multiplied by the variance value (2 x 3072000 = 6144000), so it should be installed; the real issue is the path fails the feasibility condition check.

Answer

R3's path does not meet the feasibility condition because although 5120000 is within variance range, EIGRP still requires the alternate path to be a feasible successor, and R3's reported distance meets that requirement, so it should install.