[c-nsp] T1 Bonding with PA-MC-T3

[David Coulson]

Actually, CEF per-packet usually gives more throughput than MLPPP as 
there is less overhead. You ran run the Ts in the group as HDLC, rather 
than PPP.

david raistrick wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Mar 2008, Nick Voth wrote:
>
>   
>> Thanks very much David. That definitely helps. Yes, our 2 T's are on the
>> same path to the destination so it looks like per-packet would be best in
>> that case. However, with "per-packet" can you utilize the full speed of the
>> 2 T's as if they were bonded like in MLPPP? That's the ultimate goal here.
>>     
>
> Memory says "yes" you get the full speed of 3Mb available with per-packet. 
> It has been 8 years since I last used it, but I'm sure someone can back 
> up my memory. ;)
>
> ...david
>
> ---
> david raistrick        http://www.netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html
> drais at icantclick.org             http://www.expita.com/nomime.html
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/
>