Disclaimer
The Author of this posting offers the information contained within this posting without consideration and with the reader's understanding that there's no implied or expressed suitability or fitness for any purpose. Information provided is for informational purposes only and should not be construed as rendering professional advice of any kind. Usage of this posting's information is solely at reader's own risk.
Liability Disclaimer
In no event shall Author be liable for any damages whatsoever (including, without limitation, damages for loss of use, data or profit) arising out of the use or inability to use the posting's information even if Author has been advised of the possibility of such damage.
Posting
Been a while since I've configured MLPPP. Don't recall the exact configuration statements but doesn't take many; 3 or so?
MLPPP vs. IMA, the latter, incurs ATM overhead, figure about 15%. The latter is done in hardware, the former in software (take that into account when sizing the platform). The latter, I think(?) can use all links for the same packet (that's been broken into cells), the former requires additional configuration (fragmentation) to enable similar capability (and may further increase CPU hit).
You could also equal cost route across the four links. By default, this won't increase the effective bandwidth for a single flow, although you can force a flow to be split across the four links (which I would not recommend!).
