nanog mailing list archives
Re: MLPPP over MPLS
From: "Bill Stewart" <nonobvious () gmail com>
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 11:01:03 -0800
I've also heard a variety of comments about difficulties in getting Cisco MLPPP working in MPLS environments, mostly in the past year when our product development people weren't buried in more serious problems (:--) I've got the vague impression that it was more buggy for N>2 than N=2. There are a number of ways to bond NxT1 together, including MLFR and IMA, and we've generally used IMA for ATM and MPLS services and CEF for Internet. IMA has the annoyance of extra ATM overhead, but doesn't have problems with load-balancing or out-of-order delivery, and we've used it long enough to be good at dealing with its other problems.
Current thread:
- MLPPP over MPLS Jon R. Kibler (Feb 17)
- Re: MLPPP over MPLS Jon Lewis (Feb 17)
- Re: MLPPP over MPLS Brent A O'Keeffe (Feb 20)
- Re: MLPPP over MPLS Hyunseog Ryu (Feb 17)
- Re: MLPPP over MPLS Jon R. Kibler (Feb 17)
- Re: MLPPP over MPLS Hyunseog Ryu (Feb 17)
- Re: MLPPP over MPLS Jason Frisvold (Feb 18)
- Re: MLPPP over MPLS Hyunseog Ryu (Feb 21)
- Re: MLPPP over MPLS Jon R. Kibler (Feb 17)
- Re: MLPPP over MPLS Bill Stewart (Feb 21)
- Re: MLPPP over MPLS Hyunseog Ryu (Feb 21)
- Re: MLPPP over MPLS Rodney Dunn (Feb 22)
- Re: MLPPP over MPLS Jon Lewis (Feb 17)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- RE: MLPPP over MPLS Erik Amundson (Feb 17)
- RE: MLPPP over MPLS Peering (Feb 20)