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
multilinking t1s will work fine. but depending on your customer, there are lots of things between a T1 and DS3.. such as 10Mb ethernet Steve On Wed, 13 Oct 2004, 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 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-----
Hi Gerald - If you search the list for ip load-sharing per-packet you will see how we manage all of our multi-customer T1s. Never had any long term luck with MLPPP. On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 17:47:18 -0400 (EDT) Gerald <gcoon@inch.com> 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
****************************************** Richard J. Sears Vice President American Digital Network ---------------------------------------------------- rsears@adnc.com http://www.adnc.com ---------------------------------------------------- 858.576.4272 - Phone 858.427.2401 - Fax INOC-DBA - 6130 ---------------------------------------------------- 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 Wed, 13 Oct 2004, Richard J. Sears wrote:
If you search the list for ip load-sharing per-packet you will see how we manage all of our multi-customer T1s.
Never had any long term luck with MLPPP.
We have used both, and have found that MLPPP gives better results for real-time applications like voice at the cost of increased CPU. For generic data links, ip load-sharing per packet works fine. If the source and destination traffic is reasonably diverse, simple equal cost routes without per-packet will work as well, but you won't get greater than 1.5mbps for a given flow.
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.
-- Jay Hennigan - CCIE #7880 - Network Administration - jay@west.net WestNet: Connecting you to the planet. 805 884-6323 WB6RDV NetLojix Communications, Inc. - http://www.netlojix.com/
Hello All , Where can I find info about this range/ip & who has routing respnsibility for it ? I have searched -all- RIR's & all say they don't have any information on it at any levels . Tia , JimL APNIC reports this which is a little bit more info , But ... inetnum: 156.0.0.0 - 156.255.255.255 netname: ERX-NETBLOCK descr: Early registration addresses remarks: ------------------------------------------------------ remarks: Important: remarks: remarks: Networks in this range were allocated by InterNIC remarks: prior to the formation of Regional Internet remarks: Registries (RIRs): APNIC, ARIN, LACNIC and RIPE. remarks: remarks: Address ranges from this historical space have now remarks: been transferred to the appropriate RIR database. -- +------------------------------------------------------------------+ | James W. Laferriere | System Techniques | Give me VMS | | Network Engineer | 3542 Broken Yoke Dr. | Give me Linux | | babydr@baby-dragons.com | Billings , MT. 59105 | only on AXP | +------------------------------------------------------------------+
san francisco unified school district :: Steve Huey San Francisco Unified School District 135 Van Ness Avenue #300 San Francisco, CA 94102 UNITED STATES (415) 241-6169 shuey@muse.sfusd.k12.ca.us On Thu, Oct 14, 2004 at 11:42:42AM -0600, Mr. James W. Laferriere wrote:
Hello All , Where can I find info about this range/ip & who has routing respnsibility for it ? I have searched -all- RIR's & all say they don't have any information on it at any levels . Tia , JimL
APNIC reports this which is a little bit more info , But ...
inetnum: 156.0.0.0 - 156.255.255.255 netname: ERX-NETBLOCK descr: Early registration addresses remarks: ------------------------------------------------------ remarks: Important: remarks: remarks: Networks in this range were allocated by InterNIC remarks: prior to the formation of Regional Internet remarks: Registries (RIRs): APNIC, ARIN, LACNIC and RIPE. remarks: remarks: Address ranges from this historical space have now remarks: been transferred to the appropriate RIR database.
-- +------------------------------------------------------------------+ | James W. Laferriere | System Techniques | Give me VMS | | Network Engineer | 3542 Broken Yoke Dr. | Give me Linux | | babydr@baby-dragons.com | Billings , MT. 59105 | only on AXP | +------------------------------------------------------------------+
Hello Bill , Which tool or RIR did you dig that out of ? Tia , JimL On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
san francisco unified school district :: Steve Huey San Francisco Unified School District 135 Van Ness Avenue #300 San Francisco, CA 94102 UNITED STATES (415) 241-6169 shuey@muse.sfusd.k12.ca.us ...snip... -- +------------------------------------------------------------------+ | James W. Laferriere | System Techniques | Give me VMS | | Network Engineer | 3542 Broken Yoke Dr. | Give me Linux | | babydr@baby-dragons.com | Billings , MT. 59105 | only on AXP | +------------------------------------------------------------------+
old IANA/SRI/Netsol data is occasionally useful --bill On Thu, Oct 14, 2004 at 11:57:20AM -0600, Mr. James W. Laferriere wrote:
Hello Bill , Which tool or RIR did you dig that out of ? Tia , JimL
On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
san francisco unified school district :: Steve Huey San Francisco Unified School District 135 Van Ness Avenue #300 San Francisco, CA 94102 UNITED STATES (415) 241-6169 shuey@muse.sfusd.k12.ca.us ...snip... -- +------------------------------------------------------------------+ | James W. Laferriere | System Techniques | Give me VMS | | Network Engineer | 3542 Broken Yoke Dr. | Give me Linux | | babydr@baby-dragons.com | Billings , MT. 59105 | only on AXP | +------------------------------------------------------------------+
premature... :( this block is chopped up into /24 bits... sfusd only has some of it. Waste Management (WM.COM) has some, as does FUnet (finland) and ATT.net. - which /24s are giving you fits? --bill On Thu, Oct 14, 2004 at 05:50:21PM +0000, bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
san francisco unified school district ::
Steve Huey San Francisco Unified School District 135 Van Ness Avenue #300 San Francisco, CA 94102 UNITED STATES (415) 241-6169 shuey@muse.sfusd.k12.ca.us
On Thu, Oct 14, 2004 at 11:42:42AM -0600, Mr. James W. Laferriere wrote:
Hello All , Where can I find info about this range/ip & who has routing respnsibility for it ? I have searched -all- RIR's & all say they don't have any information on it at any levels . Tia , JimL
APNIC reports this which is a little bit more info , But ...
inetnum: 156.0.0.0 - 156.255.255.255 netname: ERX-NETBLOCK descr: Early registration addresses remarks: ------------------------------------------------------ remarks: Important: remarks: remarks: Networks in this range were allocated by InterNIC remarks: prior to the formation of Regional Internet remarks: Registries (RIRs): APNIC, ARIN, LACNIC and RIPE. remarks: remarks: Address ranges from this historical space have now remarks: been transferred to the appropriate RIR database.
-- +------------------------------------------------------------------+ | James W. Laferriere | System Techniques | Give me VMS | | Network Engineer | 3542 Broken Yoke Dr. | Give me Linux | | babydr@baby-dragons.com | Billings , MT. 59105 | only on AXP | +------------------------------------------------------------------+
Hello Bill , Yes old data can be very handy ;-) . The /24 of interest s/b 156.228.80.0/24 . Tia , JimL On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
premature... :(
this block is chopped up into /24 bits... sfusd only has some of it. Waste Management (WM.COM) has some, as does FUnet (finland) and ATT.net. - which /24s are giving you fits?
--bill
On Thu, Oct 14, 2004 at 05:50:21PM +0000, bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
san francisco unified school district ::
Steve Huey San Francisco Unified School District 135 Van Ness Avenue #300 San Francisco, CA 94102 UNITED STATES (415) 241-6169 shuey@muse.sfusd.k12.ca.us
On Thu, Oct 14, 2004 at 11:42:42AM -0600, Mr. James W. Laferriere wrote:
Hello All , Where can I find info about this range/ip & who has routing respnsibility for it ? I have searched -all- RIR's & all say they don't have any information on it at any levels . Tia , JimL
APNIC reports this which is a little bit more info , But ...
inetnum: 156.0.0.0 - 156.255.255.255 netname: ERX-NETBLOCK descr: Early registration addresses remarks: ------------------------------------------------------ remarks: Important: remarks: remarks: Networks in this range were allocated by InterNIC remarks: prior to the formation of Regional Internet remarks: Registries (RIRs): APNIC, ARIN, LACNIC and RIPE. remarks: remarks: Address ranges from this historical space have now remarks: been transferred to the appropriate RIR database.
-- +------------------------------------------------------------------+ | James W. Laferriere | System Techniques | Give me VMS | | Network Engineer | 3542 Broken Yoke Dr. | Give me Linux | | babydr@baby-dragons.com | Billings , MT. 59105 | only on AXP | +------------------------------------------------------------------+
-- +------------------------------------------------------------------+ | James W. Laferriere | System Techniques | Give me VMS | | Network Engineer | 3542 Broken Yoke Dr. | Give me Linux | | babydr@baby-dragons.com | Billings , MT. 59105 | only on AXP | +------------------------------------------------------------------+
On Wed, 13 Oct 2004, Richard J. Sears wrote:
Never had any long term luck with MLPPP.
What about MFR (Multilink Frame-Relay)? What hardware was your MLPPP bad experience on? I have a 7206 I'll be using for my end of this. I've seen some web pages that discuss some problems (perhaps resolved already) in the 7500 series with MLPPP. I'm curios if anyone who has had a bad experience with MLPPP could say what hardware they were using and if the problem was determined what is the most frequent cause? I guess I'm fishing for caveats from experience to MLPPP or MFR now. Suggestions summarized went like this: - If you can afford it hardware mux the lines, but they normally hand off as v.35 or HSSI which means more hardware, more $$ etc. This is the most stable of the bunch but the most expensive as well. (This is not an option for us.) - MLPPP and per-packet CEF are tied for second place. Both are inexpensive ways to bond the lines. Both have their pros and cons. For experience purposes I would try this MLPPP first before trying a CEF option again. I'll try per-packet CEF on an internal dual-T1 setup when I upgrade one of our routers on it. I don't want to try adding too much to the antique 2500 I'm replacing. - MFR or Multilink Frame-Relay was a distant 3rd. It seems to do all of what I want, with less overhead than MLPPP. I'm not sure how tested this option is or if it would require an IOS upgrade for me or the client. - Putting ATM lines together with duct tape (AKA IMA) does not sound appealing in any way. Research yourself if you are looking for a really really low-tech 3 Mb connection, but the first time one of those ATM lines flakes out I think you would be screwed. I'm not a fan of ATM for B2B personally unless it's a backup. Thanks for the input from all that replied. I learned a few new technologies and some more stuff to read up on. Gerald
participants (7)
-
bmanning＠vacation.karoshi.com -
Gerald -
Jay Hennigan -
Mr. James W. Laferriere -
Richard J. Sears -
Stephen J. Wilcox -
Vicky