05-27-2011 11:23 AM - edited 03-04-2019 12:32 PM
Hi all,
I am looking into bringing up a remote site about 3-4 miles from my Data Center on 4 local
Point-to-Point T1 circuits. These are local Pt-to-Pt T1's so there will be 4 T1's at each end and I'll be providing my own IP
addresses. These T1's will be set up in a bundle with total bandwidth of 6MB using
Multi-link PPP. Can someone share some documentation on how to configure MLPPP on these type of circuits ?
Also, Could someone explain the benefits/differences in using MLPPP verse IMA in this scenario ?
Thank you so much in advance !!! I appreciate and inputs / suggestions !!!
D.
05-27-2011 11:46 AM
Can't you get MetroE instead ? Or MPLS. That would be so infinitely better.
Less hardware.
Less configuration.
Less trouble when T1 doesn't work but telco says it does.
Less trouble when MLPPP behaves strangely but you don't know why, and neither Cisco does.
And some more ...
05-27-2011 01:39 PM
Hi Paolo, thanks for your response !!!
I understand what you're saying, however these local T1's are very cheap and will do the job for what we need.
D.
05-27-2011 04:26 PM
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!).
05-27-2011 05:33 PM
JosephDoherty wrote:
the former (MLPPP) requires additional configuration (fragmentation) to enable similar capability (and may further increase CPU hit).
Add likely will introduce instability and odd behavoirs that apparently (and unfortunately), Cisco hasn't been able to resolve in more of 10 years of having the feature. Just search on the subject or ask a friend TAC engineer.
Maybe I'm too pessimistic today, but I think one's time is too precious to waste it fighting problems when there are smooth design alternatives (single big pipe).
Discover and save your favorite ideas. Come back to expert answers, step-by-step guides, recent topics, and more.
New here? Get started with these tips. How to use Community New member guide