|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical RE: T1 bonding
I'm re-reading it, and slowly, but I don't see mention of having two different vendors. Perhaps I need to put the beer a bit further away, but he talks about generic vendor 'x' and notes that it starts with letter 'A' as further definition, not as two separate vendors. *shrug* Scott -----Original Message----- From: Elijah Savage [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2006 8:20 PM To: [email protected] Cc: 'Matt Bazan'; [email protected] Subject: Re: T1 bonding -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Scott Morris wrote: > If you're treating them as two separate links (e.g. two POPs, etc.) > then that's correct, it'll be done by the routers choice of load-balancing (L3). > If you are going to the same POP (or box potentially) you can do MLPPP > and have a more effective L2 load balancing. > > Otherwise, it's possible to get an iMux DSU (Digital Link is a vendor > as I recall, but there may be others) that allow that magical bonding > to occur prior to the router seeing the link. At that point, the > router just sees a bigger line coming in (some do 6xT-1 and have a > 10meg ethernet output to your router). > > If you're seeing the balancing the way that you are, most likely that > vendor (I have no specific knowledge about the A-vendor) is doing > usage-based aggregation which isn't exactly a balancing act. The ones > at some of my sites are MLPPP which is a vendor-agnostic approach for the most part. > > Scott > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf > Of Elijah Savage > Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2006 7:28 PM > To: Matt Bazan > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: T1 bonding > > > Matt Bazan wrote: >>> Can someone shed some technical light on the details of how two T1's >>> are bonded (typically). We've got two sets of T's at two different >>> location with vendor 'X' (name starts w/ an 'A') and it appears that >>> we're really only getting about 1 full T's worth of bandwidth and >>> maybe 20% of the second. >>> >>> Seems like they're bonded perhaps using destination IP? It's a >>> vendor managed solution and I need to get some answers faster than >>> they're coming in. Thanks. >>> >>> Matt >>> > More than likely they are not bonded t1's they are just load balanced > by the router which by default on Cisco is per session. Meaning pc1 to > t1#1, pc2to t1#2, pc3 to t1#1. If they are truly bonded with some sort > of MUX for a 3 meg port then you would not see the results you are seeing. > > -- > http://www.digitalrage.org/ > The Information Technology News Center Remember he said both t1's are coming from different vendors, which would only leave the Mux route which is why I said what I said :) - -- http://www.digitalrage.org/ The Information Technology News Center -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFD1tJWt06NWq3hlzkRApDsAJ9nq+J+26EKYy9cwlFRmN3zhT/EFQCfdf2v IX2wkyZvsGM1sPvcEMSyK+0= =WINE -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
|