[c-nsp] MLPPP and ip load-sharing per-packet

[Joe Maimon]

For me this is a big loss.

Multiple L3 interfaces let you choose certain routes to be preferred 
over one of the L3 interfaces.

IOW you can turn on/off load balancing based on prefix.


Multiple L3 interfaces also let you perform potentialy unsafe L3 config 
operations remotely in a far less uncertain fashion.




Rodney Dunn wrote:

> Yes...good point.
> 
> On Wed, Oct 12, 2005 at 03:59:43PM +0100, Tim Franklin wrote:
> 
>>>MLPPP - more overhead involved
>>>        gives better load "balancing"
>>>        can support fragmentation for voice
>>
>>Single L3 interface.
>>
>>For me, this is a *big* win, in terms of applying QoS and for all kinds of
>>monitoring and reporting purposes.  YMMV.
>>
>>Regards,
>>Tim.
>>
>>-- 
>>____________   Tim Franklin                 e: tim at colt.net 
>>\C/\O/\L/\T/   Product Engineering Manager  w: www.colt.net 
>> V  V  V  V    Managed Data Services        t: +44 20 7863 5714 
>>Data | Voice | Managed Services             f: +44 20 7863 5876  
>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>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/
> 
>