Multi-link Frame Relay OR Load Balancing

Thu Sep 16 22:39:07 UTC 2004

At 05:52 PM 9/16/2004, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:

>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.

One other consideration is the quality and reliability of the local loops. 
Does your local telco manage to keep T-1's running well? DS-3's? If you 
have multiple circuits, you may wind up being able to ride through 
equipment failures in the local loops (or not, depends a lot on how the 
loops are built).

I'm not arguing one or the otehr is better for reliability, but it's 
something to ask before signing a contract.