lazy mentor wrote: > > I've seen where people load balanced two T1's on a per packet > basis and achieved 1.5 megs on both circuits. Which would give > them a total of 3Megs, but the provider said that they are load > balancing 1.5 megs over two T1's. I asked different person same > provider, that if I'm load balancing two T1's and utilizing > 100% on both circuits, isn't that 3Megs of data.
More than 3 Megs of data (hopefully) which means 3 MBytes of data in my dictionary. ;-) To get to your real point, I agree with you that they should be able to achieve 3 Mbps when doing per-packet load balancing across 2 T1s. Actually 6 Mbps since it's full duplex (assuming symmetic upload and download requirements). Gotta run. Priscilla > They stuck to > their guns and yelled 1.5. They couldn't prove it other than > the fact that it came down from a higher source. I tried to > google my questions for answers but no luck.If load balancing > two circuits on the same router you can go with per packet. But > it isn't recommended because it can be CPU intensive. But as > for load balancing for servers, it is recommended to go with > per destination. This will achieve better data transfer and > once the connection is established to a server is will use only > that T1 until the data transfer is complete so using a per > destination you will never achieve more than 1.5. > Some ISP's will strongly recommend per destination. I knew of > one that would configure customers on a per packet, but is now > only doing per destination. > Muxing two T1's together with an ATM IMA, I know will give you > a 3M circuit. Maybe the provider is right but I was just > looking for some facts. I usually do research before I spead > gossip. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=74421&t=74376 -------------------------------------------------- **Please support GroupStudy by purchasing from the GroupStudy Store: http://shop.groupstudy.com FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
