[nsp] Multiple T1s: MLPPP vs. equal path CEF

[Temkin, David]

If you enable ip load-sharing per-packet on the serial interfaces and have
CEF enabled this is not true.  So long as all of the T1's are around the
same latency you should be fine.

-----Original Message-----
From: Bruce Robertson [mailto:bruce at greatbasin.net] 
Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2003 2:18 PM
To: cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
Subject: [nsp] Multiple T1s: MLPPP vs. equal path CEF


We're using MLPPP to bond multiple T1s, rather than using CEF to load
balance. Aside from the fact that MLPPP is a more elegant solution in my
opinion, I've been using this configuration because of an assumption I've
been making.  Since one of my routers is about to undergo CPU meltdown due
to the MLPPP overhead, I though it was time that I verified this assumption.

Is it not true that when using equal path CEF, the maximum speed a single
TCP stream can attain is 1.5 Mb/s, no matter how many T1s are in the group?
If this is true, I will be forced to continue to use MLPPP, and probably
upgrade my router, rather than switch to CEF.  It's vital that the
connection appears to the two endpoints to be N x 1.5 Mb/s

Thanks for your comments!

--
Bruce Robertson, President/CEO				     +1-775-348-7299
Great Basin Internet Services, Inc.			fax: +1-775-348-9412
http://www.greatbasin.net


_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/