North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: MLPPP Follow Up - How we fixed the problem
On Tue, Mar 30, 2004 at 12:36:37PM -0800, Richard J. Sears wrote: > I asked the group some time ago about some problems we were seeing with > MLPPP on our Cisco 7513s. ... > > ip route X.X.X.X 255.255.255.252 Serial1/0/0/13:0 > ip route X.X.X.X 255.255.255.252 Serial2/1/0/14:0 > > > The only problem that we ran into was that we had to use the Serial designator > of the interface in our route statement otherwise it will not work (or > at least it did not for us). > > Since converting our customers (all MLPPP customers) to ip load-sharing > per-packet - we have had no further problems. FWIW I have also observed that it is necessary to specify the interface when doing per-packet load balancing across multiple PVCs, e.g. as when doing load balancing across multiple DSL circuits. I believe I mentioned this a while ago, but in a thread on a different topic. That solution was the result of grasping at straws: it seems that the router ought to be able to intuit the interface from the target address, but apparently can not. mm
|