Re: T1 bonding

[Elijah Savage <esavage () digitalrage org>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Scott Morris wrote:
> I'm re-reading it, and slowly, but I don't see mention of having two
> different vendors.  Perhaps I need to put the beer a bit further away, but
> he talks about generic vendor 'x' and notes that it starts with letter 'A'
> as further definition, not as two separate vendors.
>
> *shrug*
>
> Scott 
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Elijah Savage [mailto:esavage () digitalrage org] 
> Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2006 8:20 PM
> To: swm () emanon com
> Cc: 'Matt Bazan'; nanog () merit edu
> Subject: Re: T1 bonding
>
> Scott Morris wrote:
> > > If you're treating them as two separate links (e.g. two POPs, etc.) 
> > > then that's correct, it'll be done by the routers choice of load-balancing
> (L3).
> > > If you are going to the same POP (or box potentially) you can do MLPPP 
> > > and have a more effective L2 load balancing.
> > >
> > > Otherwise, it's possible to get an iMux DSU (Digital Link is a vendor 
> > > as I recall, but there may be others) that allow that magical bonding 
> > > to occur prior to the router seeing the link.  At that point, the 
> > > router just sees a bigger line coming in (some do 6xT-1 and have a 
> > > 10meg ethernet output to your router).
> > >
> > > If you're seeing the balancing the way that you are, most likely that 
> > > vendor (I have no specific knowledge about the A-vendor) is doing 
> > > usage-based aggregation which isn't exactly a balancing act.  The ones 
> > > at some of my sites are MLPPP which is a vendor-agnostic approach for the
> most part.
> > > Scott
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: owner-nanog () merit edu [mailto:owner-nanog () merit edu] On Behalf 
> > > Of Elijah Savage
> > > Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2006 7:28 PM
> > > To: Matt Bazan
> > > Cc: nanog () merit edu
> > > Subject: Re: T1 bonding
> > >
> > >
> > > Matt Bazan wrote:
> > > > > Can someone shed some technical light on the details of how two T1's 
> > > > > are bonded (typically).  We've got two sets of T's at two different 
> > > > > location with vendor 'X' (name starts w/ an 'A') and it appears that 
> > > > > we're really only getting about 1 full T's worth of bandwidth and 
> > > > > maybe 20% of the second.
> > > > >
> > > > > Seems like they're bonded perhaps using destination IP?  It's a 
> > > > > vendor managed solution and I need to get some answers faster than 
> > > > > they're coming in.  Thanks.
> > > > >
> > > > >   Matt
> > > More than likely they are not bonded t1's they are just load balanced 
> > > by the router which by default on Cisco is per session. Meaning pc1 to 
> > > t1#1, pc2to t1#2, pc3 to t1#1. If they are truly bonded with some sort 
> > > of MUX for a 3 meg port then you would not see the results you are seeing.
> > >
> > > --
> > > http://www.digitalrage.org/
> > > The Information Technology News Center
> Remember he said both t1's are coming from different vendors, which would
> only leave the Mux route which is why I said what I said :)
> --
> http://www.digitalrage.org/
> The Information Technology News Center
Uh Scott I think it is I whom by the way is getting up right now and
going to put the rest of the beer back in the fridge. OOOOPS
- --
http://www.digitalrage.org/
The Information Technology News Center
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFD1tPCt06NWq3hlzkRAqTUAJ44ss3rZxpxv20zXab94GbIbRoudgCaA1J9
3dTi8Msj+xp6qkJvfrSylsY=
=CTM7
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----