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

[Mauritz Lewies]

But then you might as well use per-packet load balancing...



On Thu, 2009-01-15 at 14:37 -0600, Tony Varriale wrote:

> Turn off fragmentation.  You'll see your CPU drop way down.
> 
> tv
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Andrew Jimmy" <good1 at live.com>
> To: <mauritz at three6five.com>; <cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net>
> Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2009 2:02 PM
> Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Per packet load balancing with low latency applications
> 
> 
> > 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/
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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/