Well, both the virtual-template method and the interface multilink method use MPPP (RFC 1990). The only difference is in what commands you type. The interface multilink method is a bit more intuitive.
In my experience, using the interface multilink method on lower-end routers (e.g. less than 7200/7500's), is sometimes flaky, and changing the config to virtual templates made it more stable. That might be fixed in newer code. I don't know because we changed everything to per-packet load-balancing CEF, which accomplished the same load-balancing as the MPPP with fewer bugs. ""Michael Williams"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > I had this same question a couple of months ago. Check the archives for > responses to my post. But the only real thing I remember was that using a > virtual-template avoids some problems that using Multilink PPP has. Can't > say 100% if that's true. I know where I work, we use virtual-templates > almost exclusively. > > Mike W. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=32574&t=32479 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
