From: Wade Edwards (wade.edwards@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Tue Jun 12 2001 - 17:31:45 GMT-3
I know that when you have multiple T1s to an ISP they have done
per-packet load balancing. I don't know if this is likely to have any
problems. I ran two internet connections like this and I didn't have
any problems with this setup. I wasn't looking for any problems because
at the time I didn't understand the issues of out of order packets. I
think now I would rather do a multilink connection using the two T1s as
links in that multilink group so there would not be a problem with a
smaller packet getting in front of a larger packet out of order. I
would like to hear some pros and cons to the different setups.
L8r.
-----Original Message-----
From: Chuck Church [mailto:cchurch@MAGNACOM.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2001 1:51 PM
To: Mas Kato; 'CCIELAB'
Subject: RE: WFQ and BRIs
Good article. Brings up a question, at least to me anyway. Since
packet
reordering is so bad, is it the general consensus of the ISP world to
load
balance based on per-destination rather than per-packet? It's just
something that I've been wondering about for some time.
Thanks,
Chuck
-----Original Message-----
From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com]On Behalf Of
Mas Kato
Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2001 2:15 PM
To: 'Rick Stephens'; 'CCIELAB'
Subject: RE: WFQ and BRIs
Ah! Just like a heavily loaded Juniper box! <G>
http://www.lightreading.com/document.asp?doc_id=4009&page_number=8
Thanks Rick!
-----Original Message-----
From: Rick Stephens [mailto:rstephens@wantec.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2001 10:38 AM
To: 'Mas Kato'; 'CCIELAB'
Subject: RE: WFQ and BRIs
Here is what I turned up. This is related to bridging, but it appears to
be
much more widely disabled in standard configurations. Probably for
similar
issues.
CSCdm45164
Enabling weighted fair queuing (WFQ) on an interface that belongs to a
transparent bridging bridge group may cause packets that are egressing
that
interface to be sent out of order. This situation causes failure in
terminated and bridged Logical Link Control 2 (LLC2) sessions.
Workaround: Disable WFQ using the no fair-queue interface configuration
command.
-----Original Message-----
From: Mas Kato [mailto:tealp729@home.com]
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2001 1:21 PM
To: 'CCIELAB'
Subject: WFQ and BRIs
Many moons ago, turning off weighted fair queueing ('no fair-queue') on
BRIs was standard practice. I don't remember why. Was it a workaround
for a code-path problem or something? An archive search turned up zilch.
Anyone?
Mas
**Please read:http://www.groupstudy.com/list/posting.html
**Please read:http://www.groupstudy.com/list/posting.html
**Please read:http://www.groupstudy.com/list/posting.html
**Please read:http://www.groupstudy.com/list/posting.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 13 2002 - 10:31:23 GMT-3