Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2000 11:18:43 -0400 From: Dennis <dennis@etinc.com> To: Stanley Hopcroft <Stanley.Hopcroft@IPAustralia.Gov.AU> Cc: freebsd-isp@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Throughput & Availability: Does anyone have experience with Trunking products (eg EtherChannel) ... ? Message-ID: <200008191506.LAA10918@etinc.com> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0008191402560.353-100000@stan>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> eg 4 100 TX NICs > => 200 Mbps => 400 Mbps > >Auto Failover Yes Yes We've considered doing this by balancing ethernets within bridge groups (using our bridging code), but we have doubts about the marketability. "Marketability" implies 1) the number of people who need it and 2) the number of people willing to pay for a commercial product. Its fairly easy for us to do, but the question we ask is "why not just use gigabit ethernet" if the application is PTP. >I suppose Multi-link PPP is completely out of the question because no >switch supports it ? You would not want to use MPPP anyway...its not even widely used on its target (serial lines) except for dial up as its a horrible protocol and was designed with the basic (wrong) premise that TCP stacks cant handle out of order packets. The fact that it is in use at all is an indication about the cluelessness of the marketplace. Most T1 lines are load-balanced instead as its 1) more efficient 2) much less cpu intensive and 3) there is no "protocol" so 2 boxes with different mechanisms can be connected without problems. DB To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-isp" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200008191506.LAA10918>