Multi-link Frame Relay OR Load Balancing

Thu Sep 16 22:19:05 UTC 2004

If your using Cisco hardware make sure that the IOS versions used on
both sides support 8 next-hops for load balancing.

12.3(9) on a 7206 only supported 6 in one situation, and thus the
Juniper on one end forwarded over all 8 T1's where the 7206 only
forwarded over 6.

>From my research at the time it appears that the number off next-hops
supported varied by IOS ver.

-C

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-nanog at merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog at merit.edu] On Behalf Of
Christopher L. Morrow
Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2004 3:53 PM
To: Bryce Enevoldson
Cc: nanog at merit.edu
Subject: Re: Multi-link Frame Relay OR Load Balancing

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.

-Chris