Curtis et al.
Minor correction but big difference in meaning. Per prefix is fine. It is per packet load split that causes trouble.,
Excuse my ignorance here, but I presume you are refering to per packet load sharing where the the router A sends packets alternately to router B and router C, as opposed to "per packet" load sharing across two links between routers A & B. The former is obviously brain damaged, but I can't see the problem with the latter assuming the lines have similar delay characteristics so you don't get disordered packets etc., and in fact with the standard Cisco switching cache algorithms (and I presume most other vendors) this ends up nearly per prefix anyway. Or am I missing something horrendous here? -- Alex Bligh GX Networks (formerly Xara Networks)