- A virtual community of network engineers
 Home  BookStore  StudyNotes  Links  Archives  StudyRooms  HelpWanted  Discounts  Login
RE: MPPP for DS-3's [7:40213] posted 04/03/2002
[Chronological Index] [Thread Index] [Top] [Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Thanks for the info. I was aware of the issues involved with running it
I just wanted to know if there was a limitation to the speed of an
interface that is allowed to perform it. I haven't seen anything that
says no but just curious. I agree CEF is a better solution if the
platform supports it. We actually run both for the customer that I
support. We haven't had any issues with either so far.


-----Original Message-----
From: MADMAN [mailto:dmadlan@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, April 02, 2002 1:33 PM
To: cisco@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: MPPP for DS-3's [7:40213]

As I haven ranted in the past, for parallel path load sharing just say
no to PPP.  CEF works great, is efficient and easy to configure.  PPP
has more overhead, interleaving, fragmentation (which yes can be
disabled and should if you choose PPP) all for what??  You can save IP
addresses but this is most often a moot point, use RFC1918 addresses.


"Woods, Randall, SOLCM" wrote:
> Has anyone ever tried to created a mullilink PPP bundle with DS-3's? A
> coworker was wondering and I never thought about it myself. I've only
> configured it for t-1's. I would assume the overhead might be bad for
> router instead of using CEF or just letting the routing protocol load
> balance. Any thoughts?
> Woody
David Madland
Sr. Network Engineer
CCIE# 2016
Qwest Communications Int. Inc.

"Emotion should reflect reason not guide it"

Message Posted at:
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info:
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to abuse@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx