From: iron_tri (iron_tri@msn.com)
Date: Sun Apr 27 2003 - 23:28:49 GMT-3
I have used the second method, Interface Multilink X along with the physical
interface command multilink-group X in the field, and it works just fine for
bonding the interfaces. I also used LLQ with this method, and Cisco
recommends that you put the service policy under the multilink interface.
This has been installed for a few weeks, and we only had issues with the
configuration one time, and it was related to the provider. They
accidentally put a loop in one of the circuits, so it wasn't an outage issue
caused by configuration error. Working good so far. What has everybody else
seen in the field?
HTH
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tom Larus" <tlarus@cox.net>
To: <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
Sent: Sunday, April 27, 2003 11:52 AM
Subject: Multilink ppp fragmentation with interleave-- interface multilink
versus interface virtual-template
> In this article,
>
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/customer/products/sw/iosswrel/ps1835/products_con
> figuration_guide_chapter09186a00800b75d2.html
>
> Cisco puts the PPP config on a virtual-template and then applies that to
an
> interface, but I have seen it done in a production network using
"interface
> multilink 1" and then that is applied to the physical interface as
> "multilink-group 1."
>
>
> Is there any problem with not using the virtual-template method? Anyone
> have any pros or cons of either method?
>
> I guess this is a relatively new way to do this, and the Cisco docs and
> articles often discuss the more established ways of doing things, but I
> don't want to rely on a guess.
>
> Tom Larus
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu May 01 2003 - 13:36:08 GMT-3