North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next |
Date Index |
Thread Index |
Author Index |
Re: 3 Mb question
- From: Jay Hennigan
- Date: Wed Oct 13 21:01:33 2004
On Wed, 13 Oct 2004, Richard J. Sears wrote:
> If you search the list for ip load-sharing per-packet you will see how
> we manage all of our multi-customer T1s.
> Never had any long term luck with MLPPP.
We have used both, and have found that MLPPP gives better results for
real-time applications like voice at the cost of increased CPU. For
generic data links, ip load-sharing per packet works fine. If the source
and destination traffic is reasonably diverse, simple equal cost routes
without per-packet will work as well, but you won't get greater than
1.5mbps for a given flow.
> > I've got what seems to me like an innocuous question for this list...
> > Someone is requesting access to about 3 mb of traffic up/dn. I figure 2
> > T1s will give them the 3 Mb I need, but I'm looking for suggestions on
> > either efficiently combining those 2 to get the most bandwidth for their
> > buck or else I have to look at getting them a ds3 and scaling back to
> > what they need.
> > Is there an good low end suggestion for making effective use of 2 T1s to
> > give 3 Mb of bandwidth? In practice, I've seen 2 T1s load balanced with
> > CEF not do very well at giving a full 3 Mb. (This was without turning on
> > per-packet CEF)
> > I'm not personally experienced with MLPPP or mux hardware if that helps,
> > but I could get it set up if that's the consensus as the best option.
> > The NRC of something that would effectively couple the 2 T1s would
> > easily beat the MRC of a DS3 which I think might be overkill for just 3
> > Mb.
Jay Hennigan - CCIE #7880 - Network Administration - email@example.com
WestNet: Connecting you to the planet. 805 884-6323 WB6RDV
NetLojix Communications, Inc. - http://www.netlojix.com/