I should have been more detailed.
I agree with you regarding the fragmentation.
To ensure minimal jitter and to bypass the serialization delay, some sort of
QoS should be implemented to ensure the voice traffic goes first onto the
bundle.
As a somewhat related note, the 7200s have newer DS3 cards that offload the
MLPPP overhead directly to the cards instead of using the main CPU.
tv
----- Original Message -----
From: "Oliver Boehmer (oboehmer)" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, January 16, 2009 1:12 AM
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Per packet load balancing with low latency applications
Nope. even if the sender doesn't fragment packets, the receiver will
still make sure packets are put into the correct order (MLPPP considers
all frames being "fragments" and numbers them accordingly).
I think disabling fragmentation can lead to slightly increased latency
(and possibly jitter), for example when a 1500 byte and a 40 byte
packets are sent in this sequence, and the receiver needs to wait for
the 1500 byte packet to arrive completely before forwarding the small
packet..
I wouldn't consider MLPPP as being especially CPU-hungry these days..
oli
Mauritz Lewies <> wrote on Thursday, January 15, 2009 21:59:
But then you might as well use per-packet load balancing...
On Thu, 2009-01-15 at 14:37 -0600, Tony Varriale wrote:
Turn off fragmentation. You'll see your CPU drop way down.
tv
----- Original Message -----
From: "Andrew Jimmy" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2009 2:02 PM
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Per packet load balancing with low latency
applications
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/
_______________________________________________
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/
