|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: T1 bonding
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Scott Morris wrote: > 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 > > 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 Uh Scott I think it is I whom by the way is getting up right now and going to put the rest of the beer back in the fridge. OOOOPS - -- 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 iD8DBQFD1tPCt06NWq3hlzkRAqTUAJ44ss3rZxpxv20zXab94GbIbRoudgCaA1J9 3dTi8Msj+xp6qkJvfrSylsY= =CTM7 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
|