[74778] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: 3 Mb question
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Vicky)
Wed Oct 13 19:42:05 2004
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 16:41:07 -0700
From: Vicky <vickyr@socal.rr.com>
Reply-To: vickyr@socal.rr.com
To: Gerald <gcoon@inch.com>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <20041013171848.A75202@kod.inch.com>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
...also look into IMA (inverse multiplex atm).
regards,
/vicky
Gerald wrote:
| I've got what seems to me like an innocuous question for this list...
|
| Someone is requesting access to about 3 mb of traffic up/dn. I figure 2
| T1s will give them the 3 Mb I need, but I'm looking for suggestions on
| either efficiently combining those 2 to get the most bandwidth for their
| buck or else I have to look at getting them a ds3 and scaling back to
| what they need.
|
| Is there an good low end suggestion for making effective use of 2 T1s to
| give 3 Mb of bandwidth? In practice, I've seen 2 T1s load balanced with
| CEF not do very well at giving a full 3 Mb. (This was without turning on
| per-packet CEF)
|
| I'm not personally experienced with MLPPP or mux hardware if that helps,
| but I could get it set up if that's the consensus as the best option.
| The NRC of something that would effectively couple the 2 T1s would
| easily beat the MRC of a DS3 which I think might be overkill for just 3
| Mb.
|
| Thanks for suggestions and tips.
|
| Gerald
|
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFBbb0TpbZvCIJx1bcRAtrbAKDxZDh+ln530q9peNDO5spDq6Qh6ACcD9/P
Jf/tXerUTYMWuqwvnhCIPkw=
=fhaT
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
