Home page logo

nanog logo nanog mailing list archives

Re: MAE West
From: Stephen Stuart <stuart () pa dec com>
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 97 11:48:31 -0700

2) assuming that costs favored having both aggregates in service, if
utilization on the two aggregates was 50% on (call it) A and 100% on B,
the 50% available on A would be wasted. Note that latency would go up,
because spanning tree would have pruned some intra-building link would
have been pruned in order to keep the inter-building link active. 

If this is true, then the Layer 2 bandwidth aggregation design is
pretty weak, no?

You're mixing apples and oranges. 

For example, (and yes, I know there's a world of difference) a MLPPP
link is at (effectively) layer 2 (if not 1.5), and if one side of the
link drops, the other side will carry what it can.

That is what happens within an aggregate. The multi-link PPP channel
corresponds to an "aggregate" in the terminology that I am using. 

The topic being discussed is not what happens within an aggregate, but
what happens when two aggregates are using. This would be akin to
having two multi-link PPP connections (each constructed out of some
number of physical links).


  By Date           By Thread  

Current thread:
[ Nmap | Sec Tools | Mailing Lists | Site News | About/Contact | Advertising | Privacy ]