Re: OT: MLPPP Vs. IMA

Christopher,
I feel your pain buddy.

You are right on overheads. Stick on MLPPP. IMA will just add additional
overheads.
Most likely the provider want to put you on their existing ATM network.
Believe me IMA over MPLS over ethernetis not a good idea.

Also it will depend what gear you are attaching to your E1 - are they
capable of IMA?

Are you running some sort of BTS/BSC/3GRAN?

frog

On Sat, Jan 9, 2010 at 7:40 AM, Christopher Copley
<copley.chris_at_gmail.com>wrote:

> Guys,
> Sorry for the OT, but wanted to push this out and get some thoughts on it.
> We just got a new account mgr from our telco, and he is tiring to get us to
> go to IMA over our current MLPPP for local termination to our MPLS. I
> have argued with with that if I have 3 IMA T1's and 3 MLPPP T1's that the
> MLPPP will get better performance b/c of less over head than with the ATM
> IMA links.
> He is tiring to tell me that MLPPP is not really bonded that it basically
> is
> doing per-packet load balancing per T1 and you will never get the full use
> of the T1's.
> I personally feel he is tiring to scam our upper mgt to getting more
> expensive CE routers with the ATM AIM cards. I personally can not find
> any
> doc's on this subject out there, and don't have a good way to test this.
> Any one have any thoughts?
>
> Thanks
> Chris
>
>
> Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> Subscription information may be found at:
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html

Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
Received on Mon Jan 11 2010 - 06:25:48 ART