Re: MLPPP Follow Up - How we fixed the problem

["Mark E. Mallett" <mem () mv mv com>]

On Tue, Mar 30, 2004 at 12:36:37PM -0800, Richard J. Sears wrote:
> I asked the group some time ago about some problems we were seeing with
> MLPPP on our Cisco 7513s. 

  ...
> ip route X.X.X.X 255.255.255.252 Serial1/0/0/13:0
> ip route X.X.X.X 255.255.255.252 Serial2/1/0/14:0
>
>
> The only problem that we ran into was that we had to use the Serial designator
> of the interface in our route statement otherwise it will not work (or
> at least it did not for us).
>
> Since converting our customers (all MLPPP customers) to ip load-sharing
> per-packet - we have had no further problems.


FWIW I have also observed that it is necessary to specify the
interface when doing per-packet load balancing across multiple PVCs,
e.g. as when doing load balancing across multiple DSL circuits.  I
believe I mentioned this a while ago, but in a thread on a different
topic.  That solution was the result of grasping at straws:  it seems
that the router ought to be able to intuit the interface from the
target address, but apparently can not.  

mm