[88197] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: T1 bonding
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Elijah Savage)
Tue Jan 24 19:27:58 2006
Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2006 19:27:30 -0500
From: Elijah Savage <esavage@digitalrage.org>
To: Matt Bazan <Mbazan@onelegal.com>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <3CB5335E037F5544BA279A8DB9B52C3C531B99@dc-mail.onelegal.com>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Matt Bazan wrote:
> Can someone shed some technical light on the details of how two T1's are
> bonded (typically). We've got two sets of T's at two different location
> with vendor 'X' (name starts w/ an 'A') and it appears that we're really
> only getting about 1 full T's worth of bandwidth and maybe 20% of the
> second.
>
> Seems like they're bonded perhaps using destination IP? It's a vendor
> managed solution and I need to get some answers faster than they're
> coming in. Thanks.
>
> Matt
>
More than likely they are not bonded t1's they are just load balanced by
the router which by default on Cisco is per session. Meaning pc1 to
t1#1, pc2to t1#2, pc3 to t1#1. If they are truly bonded with some sort
of MUX for a 3 meg port then you would not see the results you are seeing.
- --
http://www.digitalrage.org/
The Information Technology News Center
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFD1sXyt06NWq3hlzkRAvi4AJ0R4RVii+Wrxzs5WI5es+FYhxHD0ACgioFW
/UHUMapXnmuPFSpKrXzD3JU=
=MqxV
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
