North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical


  • From: Bill Stewart
  • Date: Tue Feb 21 14:03:17 2006
  • Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta;; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=Sh0bKKsOtv2FiFmedg47Y5fYXerfzDsYFgKvfVwCXPnuowh4uvPeK4O+GqZ/DLBdFil7TJzFa4hxOiN5o85+Hcg97xPc0cv+EYj3MlU6/FKGr0qm8fGoRACpi5DCHtdOa2ZvX9wMdtX6/XeqLpSWT6/XRaqSvZ5Jafg+jPYOefc=

I've also heard a variety of comments about difficulties in getting
Cisco MLPPP working in MPLS environments, mostly in the past year when
our product development people weren't buried in more serious problems
(:--)  I've got the vague impression that it was more buggy for N>2
than N=2.  There are a number of ways to bond NxT1 together, including
MLFR and IMA, and we've generally used IMA for ATM and MPLS services
and CEF for Internet.  IMA has the annoyance of extra ATM overhead,
but doesn't have problems with load-balancing or out-of-order
delivery, and we've used it long enough to be good at dealing with its
other problems.