Scott Weeks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:---------------- On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 14:54:44 -0700, "Scott Weeks" wrote:
>I'm searching the web for data on the overhead of using MLPPP and > not having too much success. If I'm gluing two T1s together do I > still get 1.536 times two or is there impact on this from the MLPPP? Enabling MLPPP will not change the clock-rate of the constituent-links. <snip> ---------------------------------------------------- I knew it wouldn't "change the clock-rate of the constituent-links", but I was unaware of the "PPP frame overhead will be increased by either 4 or 2 bytes" part. I had found things on old NANOG posts like "...PPP <snip> ---------------------------------------------------- --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: EVAN WILLIAMS <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> i have always found this to be a excellent resource, when looking into the operation and format of protocols. In general not much meat but enough in the morsel to help. http://www.protocols.com/pbook/ppp4.htm#MultiPPP hope this may but as useful for you as it has been for me, and still is. -------------------------------------------------- Thanks for the pointer Evan. It looks like a pretty cool site. scott _______________________________________________ juniper-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp _______________________________________________ juniper-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
