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

[Nick Voth]

>>> 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. ;)
> 
> per-packet will give you a 3mb pipe...but the advantage to MLPPP is it
> does the same and guarantees preservation of packet ordering.  Per-packet
> can/will result in out of order packets which can really foul up VOIP.
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>   Jon Lewis                   |  I route
>   Senior Network Engineer     |  therefore you are
>   Atlantic Net                |
> _________ http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key_________

Thanks again guys. It seems that the consensus from all that I've read and
the replies that I've gotten is that using CEF with "per-packet" is a great,
low overhead way to do it, BUT with sensitive applications like VoIP, MLPPP
will keep your packets in order better. I'll experiment and see. Thanks
again for everyone's advice!

-Nick Voth