|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |
From: "Daniel Golding" <dgolding@sockeye.com> To: "Eric So" <eric.so@graduate.hku.hk>, "Gyorfy, Shawn" <sgyorfy@elinkny.com> Cc: <nanog@merit.edu>, <cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net> Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 11:52:04 -0500 Message-ID: <GKEFKKIKGCMICPKBAEIMOEDMCGAA.dgolding@sockeye.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.33.0202220611110.4482-100000@vectra.netfront.net> Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu That sub-interface numbering is useless for a point-to-point circuits. - Daniel Golding > -----Original Message----- > From: Eric So [mailto:eric.so@graduate.hku.hk] > Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2002 5:16 PM > To: Gyorfy, Shawn > Cc: 'nanog@merit.edu'; 'cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net' > Subject: Re: [nsp] Cisco DS3 Questions.. > > > The proprietry HDLC will give you headache if you want > to change the platform in the future. > > FR encap gives you sub-interface numbering which acts > as an identifier to network devices through a proper > indexing scheme. > > -e > > On Thu, 21 Feb 2002, Gyorfy, Shawn wrote: > > > Since the topic exploded, what are your opinions on > encapsulation of leased > > line DS3s. We currently use Frame Relay for out Point to Point DS3 > > connections. Personally, I don't know why we use FR as our > encapsulation, > > and so the question to all. If you are running Cisco to Cisco, > would it be > > wise to run HDLC or PPP? Our DS3s' here are hardly maxed out, > 15% or so, so > > I'm not complaining about the few extra bits I can squeeze out them but > > maybe that 15% can shrink to 10% with less overhead. Opinions > or examples > > of life appreciated. > > > > Thanks > > > > shawn > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Iljitsch van Beijnum [mailto:iljitsch@muada.com] > > Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2002 4:28 PM > > To: Jon Mansey > > Cc: nanog@merit.edu > > Subject: Re: Cisco PPP DS-3 limitations - 42.9Mbpbs? > > > > > > On Wed, 20 Feb 2002, Jon Mansey wrote: > > > > > OMG! Arent we missing the point here? What about never > running links above > > > 60% or so to allow for bursts against the 5 min average, and <shudder> > > > upgrading or adding capacity when we get too little headroom. > > > > > And here we are, nickel and diming over a few MBps near to > 45M on a DS3... > > > > And why not? Obviously there is a reason why they're not upgrading, > > because there is plenty of traffic to fill up a second or faster circuit > > if packets are being dropped because of congestion. (Which has not been > > confirmed so far.) > > > > There shouldn't be any problems pushing a DS3 well beyond 99% > utilization, > > by the way. With an average packet size of 500 bytes and 98 > packets in the > > output queue on average, 99% only introduces a 9 ms delay. The extra RTT > > will also slow TCP down, but not in such a brutal way as significant > > numbers of lost packets will. Just use a queue size of 500 or so, and > > enable (W)RED to throttle back TCP when there are large bursts. > > >
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |