T-1 Bundling - IMUX vs. IMA???

[m.gwin]

Does anyone have any experience with bundling T-1's on a network hosting Citrix Metaframe applications using Wyse Winterminal clients? We are considering buying hardware to load balance 3 T-1's at a remote site but do not know whether IMUX or IMA would be the way to go. With just software based solutions, we tried to disable fast-switching to better even out the load and saw a tremendous performance hit on the Winterminals. Then speaking with another colleague, the issue was brought up that we might see similar problems implementing IMUX devices. It was recommended to go IMA which would require new routers, etc, $$$. Any help would be appreciated.

Michael Gwin

gwinmichael@johndeere.com

[hkaufm2]

I had a the similiar situation recently - with three T1's to the internet for VPN traffic. We implemented load balancing using CEF (Cisco Express Forwarding) with Dynamic BGP on the Edge router (to the ISP.)You'll probobly need at least a 36xx series router to get the performance you'll want out of BGP but it worked for us.

Hersch

[ryan.hicks]

The IMA cards work very well in the 2600 or 3600 series routers. They come in 4 or 8 T-1 models. This is assuming you have dedicated T-1 circuits to the next site and not frame-relay.

This would use ATM technology and inverse muliplex all data across 2 to 8 T-1s.

[d.schrock]

Looking for some like the above but taking 3 T1's, and passing via fiber to a 15454 DS3 12 port and handing off to an 8540 frame switch. The question is how to bundle the 3 T1's in the frame switch?

Can this be done via binding three separate PVP's on one interface? or does this require merging?