From: Pickell, Aaryn (Aaryn.Pickell@xxxxxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Tue Jun 12 2001 - 17:56:02 GMT-3
I'm generally against multilink connections. There's just so much packet
overhead with ppp multilink... I don't feel like it's worth it. Per packet
load balancing will get you exactly even utilization of your links, but you
may get sequencing messed up. I'm all for per-destination load balancing.
As long as you have a reasonable amount of traffic going through the links,
with a fairly even spread of destinations, you should be fine. There are
always edge conditions where it breaks, but generally that's where my money
is.
Aaryn Pickell - CCNP ATM, CCDP, MCSE
Senior Engineer - Routing Protocols
Getronics Inc.
Direct: 713-394-1609
Email:aaryn.pickell@getronics.com
This e-mail message and any attachments are confidential and may be
privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify me
immediately by replying to this message and please destroy all copies of
this message and attachments. Thank you.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Wade Edwards [mailto:wade.edwards@powerupnetworks.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2001 3:32 PM
> To: Chuck Church; CCIELAB
> Subject: RE: Packet reordering (WAS:WFQ and BRIs)
>
>
> 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
**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