MLPPP Follow Up - How we fixed the problem
I asked the group some time ago about some problems we were seeing with MLPPP on our Cisco 7513s. I have had 5 or 6 people contact me off list to ask how we solved the problem, so I figured I would post "our" solution to the group. I am sure there may be other fixes, however this works great for us and we have not had a problem in months since converting all MLPPP customers over. Basically we shut down MLPPP and went with (ip load-sharing per-packet) Here is what our config looks like: interface Serial1/0/0/13:0 description Customer #4144 (San Diego) #1 UPDATE [4144] ip address X.X.X.X 255.255.255.252 no ip directed-broadcast ip load-sharing per-packet ip route-cache distributed no cdp enable interface Serial2/1/0/14:0 description Customer #4144 (San Diego) #2 UPDATE [4144] ip address X.X.X.X 255.255.255.252 no ip directed-broadcast ip load-sharing per-packet ip route-cache distributed no cdp enable ip route X.X.X.X 255.255.255.252 Serial1/0/0/13:0 ip route X.X.X.X 255.255.255.252 Serial2/1/0/14:0 The only problem that we ran into was that we had to use the Serial designator of the interface in our route statement otherwise it will not work (or at least it did not for us). Since converting our customers (all MLPPP customers) to ip load-sharing per-packet - we have had no further problems. Hope this helps someone.... ****************************************** Richard J. Sears Vice President American Digital Network ---------------------------------------------------- rsears@adnc.com http://www.adnc.com ---------------------------------------------------- 858.576.4272 - Phone 858.427.2401 - Fax ---------------------------------------------------- I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . "Work like you don't need the money, love like you've never been hurt and dance like you do when nobody's watching."
On Tue, Mar 30, 2004 at 12:36:37PM -0800, Richard J. Sears wrote:
I asked the group some time ago about some problems we were seeing with MLPPP on our Cisco 7513s.
...
ip route X.X.X.X 255.255.255.252 Serial1/0/0/13:0 ip route X.X.X.X 255.255.255.252 Serial2/1/0/14:0
The only problem that we ran into was that we had to use the Serial designator of the interface in our route statement otherwise it will not work (or at least it did not for us).
Since converting our customers (all MLPPP customers) to ip load-sharing per-packet - we have had no further problems.
FWIW I have also observed that it is necessary to specify the interface when doing per-packet load balancing across multiple PVCs, e.g. as when doing load balancing across multiple DSL circuits. I believe I mentioned this a while ago, but in a thread on a different topic. That solution was the result of grasping at straws: it seems that the router ought to be able to intuit the interface from the target address, but apparently can not. mm
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. -- Bruce Robertson, President/CEO +1-775-348-7299 Great Basin Internet Services, Inc. fax: +1-775-348-9412 http://www.greatbasin.net
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
On Wed, 31 Mar 2004, Mark E. Mallett wrote:
ip route X.X.X.X 255.255.255.252 Serial1/0/0/13:0 ip route X.X.X.X 255.255.255.252 Serial2/1/0/14:0
The only problem that we ran into was that we had to use the Serial designator of the interface in our route statement otherwise it will not work (or at least it did not for us).
FWIW I have also observed that it is necessary to specify the interface when doing per-packet load balancing across multiple PVCs, e.g. as when doing load balancing across multiple DSL circuits. I
I've done lots of this (with clear T1's, no frame or DSL), and never run into that issue on 3640, 7206, 7500 series routers. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Jon Lewis *jlewis@lewis.org*| I route Senior Network Engineer | therefore you are Atlantic Net | _________ http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key_________
participants (4)
-
Bruce Robertson -
jlewis＠lewis.org -
Mark E. Mallett -
Richard J. Sears