T1 bonding
Scott Morris
swm at emanon.com
Wed Jan 25 01:22:52 UTC 2006
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:esavage at digitalrage.org]
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2006 8:20 PM
To: swm at emanon.com
Cc: 'Matt Bazan'; nanog at merit.edu
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: owner-nanog at merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog at merit.edu] On Behalf
> Of Elijah Savage
> Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2006 7:28 PM
> To: Matt Bazan
> Cc: nanog at merit.edu
> 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-----
More information about the NANOG
mailing list