RE: MLPPP Follow Up - How we fixed the problem

2004-04-01 Thread jlewis
On Thu, 1 Apr 2004, Paul Stewart wrote: > Any issues with more than 2 connections? We have a customer that we are > doing this for right now with two T1's.. Customer wants a third one > possibly.. Can't see a problem but thought I'd ask... > > How many could you theoretically do if you really ha

Re: MLPPP Follow Up - How we fixed the problem

2004-03-31 Thread jlewis
On Wed, 31 Mar 2004, Mark E. Mallett wrote: > > ip route X.X.X.X 255.255.255.252 Serial1/0/0/13:0 > > ip route X.X.X.X 255.255.255.252 Serial2/1/0/14:0 > > > > > > The only problem that we ran into was that we had to use the Serial designator > > of the interface in our route statement otherwise

Re: MLPPP Follow Up - How we fixed the problem

2004-03-31 Thread Mark E. Mallett
On Wed, Mar 31, 2004 at 01:45:47PM -0800, Bruce Robertson wrote: > > FWIW I have also observed that it is necessary to specify the > > interface when doing per-packet load balancing across multiple PVCs, > > H... we're not having this trouble. What are you using to propagate > your loopback

Re: MLPPP Follow Up - How we fixed the problem

2004-03-31 Thread Bruce Robertson
> FWIW I have also observed that it is necessary to specify the > interface when doing per-packet load balancing across multiple PVCs, H... we're not having this trouble. What are you using to propagate your loopback interfaces? It works just fine with OSPF. -- Bruce Robertson, President/C

Re: MLPPP Follow Up - How we fixed the problem

2004-03-31 Thread Mark E. Mallett
On Tue, Mar 30, 2004 at 12:36:37PM -0800, Richard J. Sears wrote: > I asked the group some time ago about some problems we were seeing with > MLPPP on our Cisco 7513s. ... > > ip route X.X.X.X 255.255.255.252 Serial1/0/0/13:0 > ip route X.X.X.X 255.255.255.252 Serial2/1/0/14:0 > > > The onl