Re: [c-nsp] Dual OC3 - Separate Carrier - Load-balancing 7201
On Tue, 5 Apr 2011, arulgobinath emmanuel wrote: out of order could be a major headache, and throughput could suffer greatly. I haven't tried nor experience in similar setup according to my search MLPPP designed to handle the out of order packet (rfc1990) but it can impact the router performance buffer space. If you're doing per-packet load-sharing, the only way to handle out-of-order packets is to have deep buffers. Either the routers or hosts have to buffer packets to get them back into the right order, or the applications themselves need to be able to tolerate packets arriving out of order. In the worst case, the proper sequence of packets does not arrive before the buffer fills, which would force the application to either re-transmit the affected chunk of data, or throw an error. None of these events are particularly good for maximizing throughput. jms On Tue, Apr 5, 2011 at 3:38 AM, Justin M. Streiner strei...@cluebyfour.orgwrote: On Mon, 4 Apr 2011, Mark Mason wrote: We are planning on terminating dual OC3 point-to-point circuits (PA-POS-2OC3) from different carriers on 7201 NPE-G2's at two of our DC's and do either HDLC CEF per packet load-balancing or multilink PPP bundle together. What are some of the questions and responses from the field for anyone who has done this type of setup? I would stay away from per-packet load-sharing in this design, unless there is a really compelling reason to use it. The biggest reason to stay away is that OC3 (technically, OC3c) circuits from different carriers to the same locations could have vastly different end-to-end latencies. If they are significantly different, dealing with packets arriving out of order could be a major headache, and throughput could suffer greatly. You might also want to look at a Gigabit Ethernet solution, if that's an option and you're not chained to a POS design. The operating costs of a pair of gig-e circuits could very well be substantially lower than a pair of OC3cs, with the added benefit of being able to provide a lot more bandwidth. If you were to get two gig-e circuits, the caveat above related to per-packet load-sharing would still apply. In a POS world, if you need more than 155 Mb/s, you either need to install another POS circuit, or start upgrading to OC12c or higher. That also throws in the need to purchase new router hardware, because the 7201 won't handle a POS OC12c, so your costs per megabit wouldn't scale too well. jms ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@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@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
[c-nsp] Dual OC3 - Separate Carrier - Load-balancing 7201
We are planning on terminating dual OC3 point-to-point circuits (PA-POS-2OC3) from different carriers on 7201 NPE-G2's at two of our DC's and do either HDLC CEF per packet load-balancing or multilink PPP bundle together. What are some of the questions and responses from the field for anyone who has done this type of setup? The particulars: PID: PA-POS-2OC3 PID: MEM-7201-FLD256 NAME: c7201, DESCR: Cisco 7201 Network Processing Engine Mark Mason Network Engineer JHA Communications Infrastructure Design and Implementation Engineering 417.235.6652 x1520 NOTICE: This electronic mail message and any files transmitted with it are intended exclusively for the individual or entity to which it is addressed. The message, together with any attachment, may contain confidential and/or privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, printing, saving, copying, disclosure or distribution is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please immediately advise the sender by reply email and delete all copies. ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
Re: [c-nsp] Dual OC3 - Separate Carrier - Load-balancing 7201
On Mon, 4 Apr 2011, Mark Mason wrote: We are planning on terminating dual OC3 point-to-point circuits (PA-POS-2OC3) from different carriers on 7201 NPE-G2's at two of our DC's and do either HDLC CEF per packet load-balancing or multilink PPP bundle together. What are some of the questions and responses from the field for anyone who has done this type of setup? I would stay away from per-packet load-sharing in this design, unless there is a really compelling reason to use it. The biggest reason to stay away is that OC3 (technically, OC3c) circuits from different carriers to the same locations could have vastly different end-to-end latencies. If they are significantly different, dealing with packets arriving out of order could be a major headache, and throughput could suffer greatly. You might also want to look at a Gigabit Ethernet solution, if that's an option and you're not chained to a POS design. The operating costs of a pair of gig-e circuits could very well be substantially lower than a pair of OC3cs, with the added benefit of being able to provide a lot more bandwidth. If you were to get two gig-e circuits, the caveat above related to per-packet load-sharing would still apply. In a POS world, if you need more than 155 Mb/s, you either need to install another POS circuit, or start upgrading to OC12c or higher. That also throws in the need to purchase new router hardware, because the 7201 won't handle a POS OC12c, so your costs per megabit wouldn't scale too well. jms ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
Re: [c-nsp] Dual OC3 - Separate Carrier - Load-balancing 7201
out of order could be a major headache, and throughput could suffer greatly. I haven't tried nor experience in similar setup according to my search MLPPP designed to handle the out of order packet (rfc1990) but it can impact the router performance buffer space. Gobinath On Tue, Apr 5, 2011 at 3:38 AM, Justin M. Streiner strei...@cluebyfour.orgwrote: On Mon, 4 Apr 2011, Mark Mason wrote: We are planning on terminating dual OC3 point-to-point circuits (PA-POS-2OC3) from different carriers on 7201 NPE-G2's at two of our DC's and do either HDLC CEF per packet load-balancing or multilink PPP bundle together. What are some of the questions and responses from the field for anyone who has done this type of setup? I would stay away from per-packet load-sharing in this design, unless there is a really compelling reason to use it. The biggest reason to stay away is that OC3 (technically, OC3c) circuits from different carriers to the same locations could have vastly different end-to-end latencies. If they are significantly different, dealing with packets arriving out of order could be a major headache, and throughput could suffer greatly. You might also want to look at a Gigabit Ethernet solution, if that's an option and you're not chained to a POS design. The operating costs of a pair of gig-e circuits could very well be substantially lower than a pair of OC3cs, with the added benefit of being able to provide a lot more bandwidth. If you were to get two gig-e circuits, the caveat above related to per-packet load-sharing would still apply. In a POS world, if you need more than 155 Mb/s, you either need to install another POS circuit, or start upgrading to OC12c or higher. That also throws in the need to purchase new router hardware, because the 7201 won't handle a POS OC12c, so your costs per megabit wouldn't scale too well. jms ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@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@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
