[c-nsp] Latency on ATM IMA circuits
Peyton Koran
pkoran at uplogix.com
Mon Feb 21 17:54:51 EST 2005
Do you mind sharing the config that you have for the Cisco 8 port?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peyton Koran
Uplogix, Inc.
512-857-7026
pkoran at uplogix.com
> From: "John Neiberger" <John.Neiberger at efirstbank.com>
> Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2005 15:50:52 -0700
> To: <pkoran at uplogix.com>
> Cc: <cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net>
> Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Latency on ATM IMA circuits
>
> This is a Cisco 8-port IMA card, using four of the ports.
>
> John
> --
>
>>>> Peyton Koran <pkoran at uplogix.com> 2/21/05 3:46:39 PM >>>
> What are you using for you IMA translation? Are you using the IMA
> cards for
> Cisco's, or are you using a real switch, like a Marconi?
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Peyton Koran
> Uplogix, Inc.
> 512-857-7026
> pkoran at uplogix.com
>
>
>> From: "John Neiberger" <John.Neiberger at efirstbank.com>
>> Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2005 15:39:04 -0700
>> To: <vandusb at attens.com>
>> Cc: cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
>> Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Latency on ATM IMA circuits
>>
>> All of these locations are in the same geographic area, not more than
> 20
>> miles apart.
>>
>> Round trip times to the first hop on the IMA are averaging 35 ms,
> which
>> seems awfully high. I would expect less then 10 ms to the first hop,
> but
>> perhaps my expectations are too high.
>>
>> Hmm...interesting. I just took a look at the RTT to the first hop at
> my
>> T1 sites and it's pretty high there, as well. It's averaging close to
> 30
>> ms just to the first hop! Man, that's slow. It's interesting that a
> ping
>> to another T1 site is only a few milliseconds longer than to my
> first
>> hop. I would expect the first hop RTT to be considerably lower than
> that
>> of other sites.
>>
>> I guess I need to do some research to figure out how high my
>> expectations should actually be.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> John
>> --
>>
>>>>> Brent Van Dussen <vandusb at attens.com> 2/21/05 3:32:56 PM >>>
>> Geographic differences wouldn't account for that added latency would
>> it? What do pings look like to the first hop of your IMA link?
>>
>> -Brent
>>
>>
>> At 02:26 PM 2/21/2005, you wrote:
>>> I'm beginning to migrate our sites to an MPLS-based VPN product.
> All
>> but
>>> one of our sites has a full T-1, but one site has an ATM IMA
> circuit
>>> composed of four T1s. When I ping from a T1 site to another T1 site
> I
>>> see an average round-trip time of about 32 ms. However, when I ping
>> from
>>> or to the site with the IMA, the round-trip time ranges between 65
>> and
>>> 80 ms. That's a pretty big jump! And one I wouldn't have expected.
>>>
>>> Is this type of added latency to be expected with IMA circuits?
> This
>> is
>>> the first one I've ever used before so I have no frame of
> reference.
>> I'm
>>> wondering if the multiplexing functions add some latency that isn't
>>> present on our other circuits.
>>>
>>> Any thoughts?
>>>
>>> Thanks!
>>> John
>>> --
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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/
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/
>>
>
>
More information about the cisco-nsp
mailing list