we will load-balance between 8 equal cost paths in 12.0()S, and 6 in
other releases of code. due to the cpu overhead with mlppp, if you can
load balance, load balancing is recommended. the cpu impact varies
by platform. particle based platforms (7200/3600/2600/etc) can implement
mlppp more efficiently then non particle based platforms (7500/4700/4500).
however the difference becomes less important with links faster then 768k,
as there is no reason to do multilink fragmentation, and multilink
fragmentation should be disabled in this case.
regards
.siva
>
> I think you can do Distributed Multi-Link PPP on a 7500 and support up to 16
> T1s (8 on a VIP2-40, and 16 on a VIP2-50 with 4+MB of RAM)
>
> n
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Phil Bedard [mailto:philb@cyberlynk.net]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2001 12:25 PM
> To: Martin Picard
> Cc: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
> Subject: Re: [nsp] Multiple T1s versus MLPPP
>
>
> The router won't balance more than 6 parallel paths I believe, so
> the only real option is MPPP. I tested this a few weeks ago when we had
> a customer situation come up that might warrant doing this. I could
> only test 6 parallel paths vs. a 6 circuit MPPP bundle. In my tests, it
> showed the 6 load-balanced T1s to be about 4-5% faster than the MPPP
> bundle. The 8 T1 MPPP bundle was definitely faster than the 6
> load-balanced T1s however. These tests were done on two 7206VXRs
> (NPE300) with PA-MC-8T1s connected back to back. The CPU usage
> difference between MPPP and load-balanced was perhaps 1-2%.
>
> I'm pretty sure the max you can do is 8 in one bundle, but don't quote
> me on that. I believe on the 10000 you can do 10 in a single bundle,
> but I doubt you are using a 10000.
>
>
> Phil Bedard
>
>
> On Tue, 13 Feb 2001, Martin Picard wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I have two routers with 8-T1 interfaces.
> > How much benefit do I have by using MLPPP
> > to bundle them instead of using separate
> > serial interfaces ?
> > Also, what would be the max number of
> > T1s to put in such MLPPP bundle ?
> >
> > tx
> > mp
> >
> >
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Aug 04 2002 - 04:12:29 EDT