[nsp] NxT1 MLPPP

[babylon at egenius.org]

Yes, Instead with ATM you would get SAR and Cell Tax.

jon

> 
> On Wed, 11 Feb 2004, David Curran wrote:
> > If you're trying to decide which to use it may also be useful to consider
> > the traffic which will be passing over it.  If its going to be lots of small
> > packets, CEF with per-packet will run just as fast as MLPPP.  If its going
> > to be lots of large packets mixed in with other traffic you might benefit
> > from MLPPPs fragmentation and interleaving.  YMMV
> 
> You could also try ATM IMA with the NM-4T1-IMA / NM-8T1-IMA cards. Then 
> youd get all the multilink benefits without the CPU overhead of MLPPP or 
> the reordering issues of per-packet CEF.
> 
> It does mean youd have to run ATM though, and use the 36xx platform.
> 
> -Dan
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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/
>