[69231] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: MLPPP Follow Up - How we fixed the problem
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Mark E. Mallett)
Wed Mar 31 19:06:34 2004
From: "Mark E. Mallett" <mem@mv.mv.com>
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 19:05:51 -0500
To: Bruce Robertson <bruce@greatbasin.net>
Cc: "Mark E. Mallett" <mem@mv.mv.com>,
"Richard J. Sears" <rsears@adnc.com>, nanog list <nanog@merit.edu>
Mail-Followup-To: Bruce Robertson <bruce@greatbasin.net>,
"Richard J. Sears" <rsears@adnc.com>, nanog list <nanog@merit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <200403312145.i2VLjmh8016634@greatbasin.net>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
On Wed, Mar 31, 2004 at 01:45:47PM -0800, Bruce Robertson wrote:
> > FWIW I have also observed that it is necessary to specify the
> > interface when doing per-packet load balancing across multiple PVCs,
>
> Hmmmm... we're not having this trouble. What are you using to propagate
> your loopback interfaces? It works just fine with OSPF.
Probably apples/oranges. We're not talking OSPF with our customer
DSL boxes; the routing entries (as with the original poster, I believe)
are static. Or maybe I am misunderstanding you.
mm
