nanog mailing list archives
Re: 3 Mb question
From: Jay Hennigan <jay () west net>
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 17:59:24 -0700 (PDT)
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 - jay () west net WestNet: Connecting you to the planet. 805 884-6323 WB6RDV NetLojix Communications, Inc. - http://www.netlojix.com/
Current thread:
- 3 Mb question Gerald (Oct 13)
- Re: 3 Mb question Stephen J. Wilcox (Oct 13)
- Re: 3 Mb question Vicky (Oct 13)
- Re: 3 Mb question Richard J. Sears (Oct 13)
- Re: 3 Mb question Jay Hennigan (Oct 13)
- None of the RIRs claims 156.228.80.144 Mr. James W. Laferriere (Oct 14)
- Re: None of the RIRs claims 156.228.80.144 bmanning (Oct 14)
- Re: None of the RIRs claims 156.228.80.144 Mr. James W. Laferriere (Oct 14)
- Re: None of the RIRs claims 156.228.80.144 bmanning (Oct 14)
- Re: None of the RIRs claims 156.228.80.144 bmanning (Oct 14)
- Re: None of the RIRs claims 156.228.80.144 Mr. James W. Laferriere (Oct 14)
- Re: 3 Mb question Jay Hennigan (Oct 13)