-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Scott Morris wrote:
If you're treating them as two separate links (e.g. two POPs, etc.) then that's correct, it'll be done by the routers choice of load-balancing (L3). If you are going to the same POP (or box potentially) you can do MLPPP and have a more effective L2 load balancing.
Otherwise, it's possible to get an iMux DSU (Digital Link is a vendor as I recall, but there may be others) that allow that magical bonding to occur prior to the router seeing the link. At that point, the router just sees a bigger line coming in (some do 6xT-1 and have a 10meg ethernet output to your router).
If you're seeing the balancing the way that you are, most likely that vendor (I have no specific knowledge about the A-vendor) is doing usage-based aggregation which isn't exactly a balancing act. The ones at some of my sites are MLPPP which is a vendor-agnostic approach for the most part.
Scott
-----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog@merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu] On Behalf Of Elijah Savage Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2006 7:28 PM To: Matt Bazan Cc: nanog@merit.edu Subject: Re: T1 bonding
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 Remember he said both t1's are coming from different vendors, which would only leave the Mux route which is why I said what I said :)
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 iD8DBQFD1tJWt06NWq3hlzkRApDsAJ9nq+J+26EKYy9cwlFRmN3zhT/EFQCfdf2v IX2wkyZvsGM1sPvcEMSyK+0= =WINE -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----