[nsp] ip load-sharing per-packet - cef accelerated ?

sthaug at nethelp.no sthaug at nethelp.no
Tue Mar 11 07:45:10 EST 2003

> In my opinion, MLPPP is a much better solution to the problem.  Yes there's
> a bit of a CPU hit, but with two T1s, for example, you now have a true 3 Mb/s
> pipe, not two 1.5 Mb/s pipes that are load balanced.  If a customer *needs*
> say, 2 Mb/s, you can provide it.  We use MLPPP everywhere in our network,
> and it always produces better results than load balancing.

On the other hand, we have 2600s which are unusable with MLPPP (due to
the CPU hit of multiple E1s), but handle the load just fine with per-
packet load balancing. YMMV.

Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sthaug at nethelp.no

More information about the cisco-nsp mailing list