No, authentication is absolutely not a requirement. What I said is that if authentication is used, then by default the router will also use the authenticated name as an identifier for multilink, along with the endpoint discriminator (which is optional according to the spec's, but is implemented in IOS). If there is no authentication, then a Cisco router will just revert to the endpoint discriminator. Now, you can change this default behavior to whatever you want (multilink bundle-name xxx).
This is all spelled out in RFC 1990. Again, if you're still confused, please read it. It explains it better than I ever could. wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > I was recently on a voice/data course, and although the course was > originally theory only, the instructor 'borrowed' the CVOICE lab exercises > and included some of those (or modifications of them). > In one of those exercises, we had several routers connected in series... so > Router A --- Router B --- Router C > Router A and Router C still had the same host name. > We configured the serial links to use PPP encapsulation, and PPP multilink > (with link fragmentation). There was no authentication configured. > The link from router A to router B was configured first, and came up no > problems. The link from router B to router C was configured in the same > way, and would not come up properly. > Changed the hostname on router C (so it was different to the hostname on > router A), and the link came up immediately. > 'show PPP multilink' on router B showed the two bundles, each identified by > the router name at the other end of the link. > > So I don't think authentication is actually a requirement for using the > name as the bundle identifier - at least with Cisco gear. > > JMcL > ----- Forwarded by Jenny Mcleod/NSO/CSDA on 23/11/2001 02:30 pm ----- > > > "Michael > Williams" To: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: PPP Multilink - > Virtual > Sent by: Interface > [7:26877] > > nobody@groups > > tudy.com > > > > 23/11/2001 > 01:30 > am > > Please > respond > to > > "Michael > > Williams" > > > > > > > nrf wrote: > > If you are using PPP authentication, then it will use the > > authenticated name > > of the other side to determine what link goes with what > > bundle. It can also > > use a unique identifying value called the > > endpoint-discriminator, which is a > > a number that is negotiated when multilink is first negotiated > > in LCP. It > > can use both authenticated name and endpoint discriminator, and > > this is the > > default behavior. This behavior can be controlled using > > "multilink > > bundle-name" commands. > > We're not using PPP authentication on the links. So it must be using the > endpoint discriminator. Do you know of a webpage or book that lays out > specifically the process that Cisco routers use to determine which links go > in which bundles? > > > In my experience, doing it the with direct MLP bundle command > > is flakier. > > I've had several weird multilink problems that I solved just > > reverting to > > the virtual-template method. The virtual-template way has > > given me less > > problems. But the direct MLP way is more intuitive. > > > > But as a side-note, I often see MPPP on serial interfaces as > > sort of a > > fool's errand, unless perhaps you are linking a Cisco router to > > another > > vendor (MPPP on dial networks like ISDN is still useful). The > > only really > > good reason to use MPPP on a serial link is for link > > load-balancing. But if > > you just need link load-balancing, then all I have to say is > > "CEF". End of > > story. CEF accomplishes the same thing, and is overall > > faster, less > > resource-intensive, and more stable than MPPP. > > Well, we considered using EIGRP load balancing, but I can't find > verification that EIGRP will load balance IPX traffic, which is needed. We > run both IP and IPX. As far as CEF goes, the routers at the remote ends of > our bundles are uslaly 2500s, so I don't think CEF is an option. We are > using MLP to load balance over multiple T1s. The virtual-templates seems > to > be working just fine, so I guess my questions here are more academic in > nature. > > Thanks for your input! > Mike W. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=27174&t=26877 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
