[c-nsp] Per packet load balancing with low latency applications

[Andrew Jimmy]

I'm using MLPPP along with CRTP on Juniper routers (using AS PIC), And it is
working like a charm... yea true MLPPP stuff is complicated on Cisco devices
which is CPU hungry ...

-----Original Message-----
From: cisco-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net
[mailto:cisco-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Mauritz Lewies
Sent: Friday, January 16, 2009 12:40 AM
To: cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Per packet load balancing with low latency applications

Hi

Out of personal experience MLPPP sounds great in theory and technically
should be a viable solution. However, Cisco has never really been able
to deliver a bug free MLPPP implementation...

We have had situations of per-packet, moving to MLPPP, going back to
per-session and eventually having to aggregate into larger single links.
IOS has just never really worked with MLPPP and I strongly advise
against.




On Thu, 2009-01-15 at 08:08 -0800, Yan Filyurin wrote:

> Look for ways to aggregate multiple physical circuits into one logical
that has a native way to load balance and still insure that packets are not
out of sequence like MLPPP or  MLFR since they have their own sequencing
that prevents out of order arrival, not to mention a bunch of things like
fragmentation and interleaving that is great for voice.   As far as market
data application goes, is it by any chance multicast and UDP, which could
potentially make it subject to the same constraints as voice. You could
always do all kinds of things to influence various types of traffic going
over just a single link with redundancy and all or just do per destination.
I would vote for MLPPP.
> 
> Like the previous email said, you can use L3 technologies such as
tunneling with sequence datagrams, but all it will do is drop packets that
are out of order, thus moving the problem further from the application, but
still creating it. I've only read about it.  I am sure everyone here will
vote for MLPPP.
> 
> Yan
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ________________________________
> From: William <willay at gmail.com>
> To: Brad Hedlund <brhedlun at cisco.com>
> Cc: "cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net" <cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net>
> Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2009 10:16:56 AM
> Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Per packet load balancing with low latency
applications
> 
> Hi Brad,
> 
> Thanks for your input.
> 
> Is there anything else I can use to achieve my goal? I'm pretty sure
> getting a bigger circuit will be a last resort.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> W
> 
> 2009/1/15 Brad Hedlund <brhedlun at cisco.com>:
> > On 1/15/09 6:25 AM, "William" <willay at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> My
> >> question is what would cause the packets to arrive out of sequence?
> >
> > Path #1 might have a little more congestion than Path #2, which would
cause
> > Packet #1 sent down Path #1 to sit in a buffer an extra millisecond or
two
> > than Packet #2 sent down Path #2 with no congestion.  This results in
Packet
> > #2 arriving at the destination before Packet #1.  The result of this
being
> > poor application performance.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Brad Hedlund
> > bhedlund at cisco.com
> > http://www.internetworkexpert.org
> >
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> 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/
_______________________________________________
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/