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

[Tim Franklin]

> 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.

I'm not entirely sure why you'd care, if both (all) links are connected to
the same router at each end.  In any case, you're going beyond CEF
load-balancing there, which was what we were comparing.

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

If it's potentially unsafe, I try *really* hard not to do it without a
maintenance window and "reload in 10" ;)

I probably ought to add, I'm coming at this from the perspective of any kind
of link bundling being a hack around the fact that I can't get a
decent-sized circuit for financial or capacity reasons.  I want my n x E1 to
look as much as possible like the the E3 I'd have had in a perfect world.

If we're talking about deliberately building something for resiliency, it's
a different discussion.

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