RE: MPPP for DS-3's [7:40213]
Thanks for the info. I was aware of the issues involved with running it I just wanted to know if there was a limitation to the speed of an interface that is allowed to perform it. I haven't seen anything that says no but just curious. I agree CEF is a better solution if the platform supports it. We actually run both for the customer that I support. We haven't had any issues with either so far. Thanks, Woody CCNP -Original Message- From: MADMAN [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, April 02, 2002 1:33 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: MPPP for DS-3's [7:40213] As I haven ranted in the past, for parallel path load sharing just say no to PPP. CEF works great, is efficient and easy to configure. PPP has more overhead, interleaving, fragmentation (which yes can be disabled and should if you choose PPP) all for what?? You can save IP addresses but this is most often a moot point, use RFC1918 addresses. Dave Woods, Randall, SOLCM wrote: Has anyone ever tried to created a mullilink PPP bundle with DS-3's? A coworker was wondering and I never thought about it myself. I've only configured it for t-1's. I would assume the overhead might be bad for the router instead of using CEF or just letting the routing protocol load balance. Any thoughts? Woody CCNP -- David Madland Sr. Network Engineer CCIE# 2016 Qwest Communications Int. Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] 612-664-3367 Emotion should reflect reason not guide it Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=40391t=40213 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MPPP for DS-3's [7:40213]
No speed issues. I have actually heard of MPPP being run successfully on even higher speed links, like OC-12. But I don't recommend it. Listen to the madman - use CEF. Woods, Randall, SOLCM wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... Thanks for the info. I was aware of the issues involved with running it I just wanted to know if there was a limitation to the speed of an interface that is allowed to perform it. I haven't seen anything that says no but just curious. I agree CEF is a better solution if the platform supports it. We actually run both for the customer that I support. We haven't had any issues with either so far. Thanks, Woody CCNP -Original Message- From: MADMAN [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, April 02, 2002 1:33 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: MPPP for DS-3's [7:40213] As I haven ranted in the past, for parallel path load sharing just say no to PPP. CEF works great, is efficient and easy to configure. PPP has more overhead, interleaving, fragmentation (which yes can be disabled and should if you choose PPP) all for what?? You can save IP addresses but this is most often a moot point, use RFC1918 addresses. Dave Woods, Randall, SOLCM wrote: Has anyone ever tried to created a mullilink PPP bundle with DS-3's? A coworker was wondering and I never thought about it myself. I've only configured it for t-1's. I would assume the overhead might be bad for the router instead of using CEF or just letting the routing protocol load balance. Any thoughts? Woody CCNP -- David Madland Sr. Network Engineer CCIE# 2016 Qwest Communications Int. Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] 612-664-3367 Emotion should reflect reason not guide it Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=40429t=40213 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
MPPP for DS-3's [7:40213]
Has anyone ever tried to created a mullilink PPP bundle with DS-3's? A coworker was wondering and I never thought about it myself. I've only configured it for t-1's. I would assume the overhead might be bad for the router instead of using CEF or just letting the routing protocol load balance. Any thoughts? Woody CCNP Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=40213t=40213 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MPPP for DS-3's [7:40213]
As I haven ranted in the past, for parallel path load sharing just say no to PPP. CEF works great, is efficient and easy to configure. PPP has more overhead, interleaving, fragmentation (which yes can be disabled and should if you choose PPP) all for what?? You can save IP addresses but this is most often a moot point, use RFC1918 addresses. Dave Woods, Randall, SOLCM wrote: Has anyone ever tried to created a mullilink PPP bundle with DS-3's? A coworker was wondering and I never thought about it myself. I've only configured it for t-1's. I would assume the overhead might be bad for the router instead of using CEF or just letting the routing protocol load balance. Any thoughts? Woody CCNP -- David Madland Sr. Network Engineer CCIE# 2016 Qwest Communications Int. Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] 612-664-3367 Emotion should reflect reason not guide it Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=40221t=40213 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
