I would agree only under certain limited situations.
Per packet load balancing COULD increase jitter, and if you're running VOIP (or
similar protocols) could degrade performance. It could also affect TCP performance
(on OSes not SACK enabled) as well.
This would only really happen if you're T1's are near capacity (~above 80% or so).
Near when queues start causing noticeable delays.
If were talking about 2 identically configured T1's, on the same router, through the
same loop provider, connected to one ISP--I highly doubt a situation where packet
reordering would arise. It's not impossible, but unlikely as all the circuits would
be utilized the same, thus queue delays should be similar across the board.
I've done this on a private network with 4 T1's and never had a problem. We were
pushing 100GB database dumps across it and performance did quadruple over the single
T1.
-=Vandy=-
-----Original Message-----
From: prue [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2003 1:21 PM
To: Vandy Hamidi
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Newbie network upgrade question, apologies in advance to
NANOG
Vandy,
>Also, you may want to set your border router (the one with the serials to your
>ISP) to route "per packet" as opposed to allowing the routes to cache. This
>will distribute the bandwidtch evenly across your T1's. If you don't, then a
>single high traffic session or destination can consume an uneven amount of
>bandwidth on one of your lines. You can ask your ISP to do this as well for
>incoming packets.
That is not such a good idea generally. If you do this then you get packet
reordering. This can be detrimental to TCP performance.
Walt
