North American Network Operators Group
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: Multi-link Frame Relay OR Load Balancing

  • From: Daniel Senie
  • Date: Thu Sep 16 18:41:43 2004

At 05:52 PM 9/16/2004, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:


On Thu, 16 Sep 2004, Bryce Enevoldson wrote:

>
> We are in the process of updating our internet connection to 8 t1's bound
> together.  Due to price, our options have been narrowed to AT&T and MCI.
> I have two questions:
> 1.  Which technology is better for binding t1's:  multi link frame relay
> (mci's) or load balancing (att's)

of course, as always... not mci's view on the world ;)

depends on what you want... do you want more than a 1.5mbps flow to pass?
or do you just want to get 9mb of bandwidth and you don't care about max
flow size? The MFR stuff will allow your link to look like a 9mb path, not
6 1.5mb paths. The load balancing makes it look like 6 l.5mb paths.

> 2. Which company has a better pop in Atlanta: mci or att?

i'll avoid this question since I'm not equiped to answer as anything but a
marketting answer :)

>
> We are in the Chattanooga TN area and our current connection is 6 t1's
> through att but they will only bond 4 so they are split 4 and 2.
>

Some folks have said in the last that over 6mb of bandwidth it might be
better/cheaper/easier to just get a fractional/burstable DS3 to meet your
needs.

One other consideration is the quality and reliability of the local loops. Does your local telco manage to keep T-1's running well? DS-3's? If you have multiple circuits, you may wind up being able to ride through equipment failures in the local loops (or not, depends a lot on how the loops are built).

I'm not arguing one or the otehr is better for reliability, but it's something to ask before signing a contract.