[c-nsp] MLPPP maximum load

[a. rahman isnaini r. sutan]

I'm running this MLPPP on 7200 NPE 400.
Much better bundling up to 8 T1s/E1s as the overhead not significantly 
different againts le say bundling 2-3 E1s ?
Thanks this is fresh to me.

Sometimes weird thing like packet loss happening.
Clearing ARP entries, shutting down the interface MLPPP or even serial 
ports, and bring them back to up no more loss, even the traffic eventually 
raises up and higher.

:: a. rahman isnaini r. sutan



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Adrian Chadd" <adrian at creative.net.au>
To: "Robert Boyle" <robert at tellurian.com>
Cc: "a. rahman isnaini r. sutan" <risnaini at speed.net.id>; 
<cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net>
Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2007 10:57 AM
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] MLPPP maximum load


: On Mon, Aug 13, 2007, Robert Boyle wrote:
: > At 10:38 PM 8/13/2007, a. rahman isnaini r. sutan wrote:
: > >Am I right to say that MLPPP could utilize all bundled T1/E1 100% ?
: > >Or it might be wouldn't work normally as there some headers added on ?
: > >And recommended is 75% for a normal load balancing.
: > >
: > >Any suggestion would be appreciated.
: >
: > The MLPPP line protocol overhead is negligible. However, on some
: > platforms, the CPU overhead is high. On any modern Cisco router
: > (18xx/28xx/38xx+) or any higher end older router (3700,7200) you
: > should be fine up to the maximum of 8xT1/E1. Try 8xT1 with a full
: > 12Mbit/s on a 3620 or 4xT1 on a 2600 and you may run out of CPU.
:
: It becomes less negligible as you add more bundles - it splits the
: packets up and transmits the fragments in parallel. Smaller packets ==
: larger overhead == more waste. There's a diminishing return on
: adding more bundles into MLPPP.
:
:
:
:
: Adrian
:
:
:
: -- 
: No virus found in this incoming message.
: Checked by AVG Free Edition.
: Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.11.17/951 - Release Date: 8/13/2007 
10:15 AM
:
: