From: ccie2be (ccie2be@nyc.rr.com)
Date: Fri Jan 16 2004 - 11:19:53 GMT-3
Thanks Andrew for getting back to me.
If you don't mind, I want to make sure I'm correctly interpreting what
you're saying to me.
It seems that your 1st point is that with the "int multilink x" command,
it's not required that the data-link encap protocol is PPP, although with
the "int virtual-template x", PPP encap is required on the physical
interface. Is that correct?
Regarding your 2nd point about LLQ compatibility, could you tell me more
about what compatibility issues there are.
Also, are there any links you can send me that explain these issues in more
detail?
Thanks, dt
----- Original Message -----
From: "Andrew Bratchell" <a.bratchell@caeuk.com>
To: "ccie2be" <ccie2be@nyc.rr.com>; "Group Study" <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
Sent: Friday, January 16, 2004 6:40 AM
Subject: RE: Multilink PPP
They basically do the same thing, the interface virtual-template is the
older command. Cisco recommend using interface multilink, the reasons
being:
* Multilink interfaces allow the network administrator to define
multiple multilink interfaces and bind then to different physical
interfaces whereas the virtual template will bind itself to any
interface that is using ppp encapsulation.
* There can be compatibility issues with LLQ when the service
policy is applied to the virtual access interface that is automatically
created through the virtual template interface
-----Original Message-----
From: ccie2be [mailto:ccie2be@nyc.rr.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2004 7:09 PM
To: Group Study
Subject: Multilink PPP
Hi all,
I just discovered the "interface multilink x" command. What's the
difference, if any, between that command and the command, "interface
virtual-template x"?
They seem to do and serve the same purpose, is that true? Are they
interchangable? If not, when would I need to use each command?
Thanks in advanced, dt
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Feb 02 2004 - 09:07:46 GMT-3