RE: Ancient Isdn bri wisdom ? [7:40586] posted 04/08/2002
- Subject: RE: Ancient Isdn bri wisdom ? [7:40586]
- From: "Herold Heiko" <Heiko.Herold@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2002 06:16:52 -0400
To everyone, thank you for your advice, what you wrote seems reasonable.
However it seems this would mean if there are only single channel
connections (64k or 56k only) [m]route-cache and fair-queue can remain
enabled. I'll try that asap.
-- PREVINET S.p.A. Heiko.Herold@xxxxxxxxxxx
-- Via Ferretto, 1 ph x39-041-5907073
-- I-31021 Mogliano V.to (TV) fax x39-041-5907472
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lomker, Michael [mailto:mlomker@xxxxxxx]
> Sent: Friday, April 05, 2002 5:31 PM
> To: cisco@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: Ancient Isdn bri wisdom ? [7:40586]
> > Now I tried to research the reason for that and really didn't
> > find any.
> It is done because ISDN lines are considered two physical
> paths that are
> bonded together using PPP multilink or Cisco's proprietary
> bonding. If you
> don't disable route caching then the tcp/ip conversation will
> always be
> switched out the same physical path (your big download will
> only use 1/2 of
> the 128k connection). It's easy to test that...just remove
> it sometime.
> no-fair queue appears to be the default for asynchronous
> interfaces on the
> later versions of IOS. To be honest, I'm not certain why
> FIFO offers better
> performance than WFQ would on asynch lines; I can't find a
> good explanation
> on CCO right now.
Message Posted at:
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to abuse@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx