I'm using MLPPP along with CRTP on Juniper routers (using AS PIC), And it is working like a charm... yea true MLPPP stuff is complicated on Cisco devices which is CPU hungry ...
-----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Mauritz Lewies Sent: Friday, January 16, 2009 12:40 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Per packet load balancing with low latency applications Hi Out of personal experience MLPPP sounds great in theory and technically should be a viable solution. However, Cisco has never really been able to deliver a bug free MLPPP implementation... We have had situations of per-packet, moving to MLPPP, going back to per-session and eventually having to aggregate into larger single links. IOS has just never really worked with MLPPP and I strongly advise against. On Thu, 2009-01-15 at 08:08 -0800, Yan Filyurin wrote: > Look for ways to aggregate multiple physical circuits into one logical that has a native way to load balance and still insure that packets are not out of sequence like MLPPP or MLFR since they have their own sequencing that prevents out of order arrival, not to mention a bunch of things like fragmentation and interleaving that is great for voice. As far as market data application goes, is it by any chance multicast and UDP, which could potentially make it subject to the same constraints as voice. You could always do all kinds of things to influence various types of traffic going over just a single link with redundancy and all or just do per destination. I would vote for MLPPP. > > Like the previous email said, you can use L3 technologies such as tunneling with sequence datagrams, but all it will do is drop packets that are out of order, thus moving the problem further from the application, but still creating it. I've only read about it. I am sure everyone here will vote for MLPPP. > > Yan > > > > > ________________________________ > From: William <[email protected]> > To: Brad Hedlund <[email protected]> > Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2009 10:16:56 AM > Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Per packet load balancing with low latency applications > > Hi Brad, > > Thanks for your input. > > Is there anything else I can use to achieve my goal? I'm pretty sure > getting a bigger circuit will be a last resort. > > Regards, > > W > > 2009/1/15 Brad Hedlund <[email protected]>: > > On 1/15/09 6:25 AM, "William" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> My > >> question is what would cause the packets to arrive out of sequence? > > > > Path #1 might have a little more congestion than Path #2, which would cause > > Packet #1 sent down Path #1 to sit in a buffer an extra millisecond or two > > than Packet #2 sent down Path #2 with no congestion. This results in Packet > > #2 arriving at the destination before Packet #1. The result of this being > > poor application performance. > > > > Cheers, > > > > Brad Hedlund > > [email protected] > > http://www.internetworkexpert.org > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp > archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/ > > > > > _______________________________________________ > cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp > archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/ _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/ _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
