From: Stan Buskus (stan.buskus@xxxxxxx)
Date: Tue Sep 05 2000 - 08:56:19 GMT-3
If the link can run PPP you can use a virtual multi-link for load
balancing. I had one situation where I had a full T1 and a partial T1. I
combined them into one virtual link. Once combined ppp did the load
balancing.
Stan Buskus
damien wrote:
> Thanks for the replies, I am familiar with all the switching methods
> and how they operate. What I would like to know is more on a practical
> level. of what ratio speed links people have experienced problems with
> out of sequence packets. So if I have to equal cost routes to the same
> destination, either by manipulating metrics or using variance or
> whatever, at what different ratio's regarding the links speeds can you
> expect to see problems using with fast-switching or process if
> any. Variance will only switch per packet assuming you have process
> switching enabled. Otherwise its per destination/ stream. So Variance
> only accomodates route selection.......! forgot about that
> :~) Therefore if I have 2 equal cost paths and use fast-switching/ cef
> (without perpacket enabled)....there should be know issues with out of
> sequence as the whole stream is switching via a single speed path ??
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Graham Shaw
> To: 'damien' ; ccielab@groupstudy.com
> Sent: Monday, September 04, 2000 1:09 PM
> Subject: RE: Out of sequence packets
> Variance is only used to inject unequal cost routes into
> the routing table. As far as per packet of per
> destination. Depends if you are process switching or
> interrupt context switching. (The path taken depends on
> links.. If you have a route with a metric of 10000 and a
> route with a metric of 20000 then 2 paths will go across
> the lower route and 1 path will go across the upper
> route.)Process switching will (on equal cost links) round
> robin packet. Fast switching will switch packets based on
> per destination IP address. Once the flow is built then it
> will always use the same outbound interface until the cache
> is invalidated. Cef by defaults operates exatly the same as
> fast switching (but a little faster).. However you can have
> CEF do per packet load balancing on a per-interface basis if
> required.
>
> -----Original Message----
> From: damien [mailto:damien@clara.co.uk]
> Sent: 04 September 2000 15:10
> To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
> Subject: Out of sequence packets
>
> Has anybody actually seen problems with out of
> sequence packets in real life scenarios. The
> scenario I am interested in is the typical example
> where there are switch paths to the same
> destination with one link for example 2M and the
> other 1M? Does anybody have any proof of concept
> testing done in a Lab were they can confirm at
> what different speed ratios you are sure to
> experience problems based on certain types of
> switching etc? I appreciate that there are a lot
> of variables in this equation, e.g. type of
> switching, size of traffic streams etc, etc. Any
> information/ experiences would be appreciated. Can
> Variance overcome this issue ? Without reviewing
> my notes, I can not remember whether Variance
> switches on stream or packet. If it is stream. In
> theory, if a Router is performing stream
> switching, is it fair to say that there should be
> no out of sequence issues due to the fact that the
> entire stream is following a single path with
> fixed speeds. If per packet switching is in use,
> they there maybe issues with out of sequence
> packets due to the packets belonging to the same
> stream being switched via different speed links. I
> could go on an on........ :~)
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 13 2002 - 08:24:52 GMT-3