 CanerisErikCanerisPremium,VIP
join:2007-10-03
Toronto, ON
kudos:2 | reply to Inssomniak
Re: fw5 project with TSI It should still work against their Juniper LNSs, though not tested in a couple of releases and it won't be as optimal as going against our LNSs. This is because the round-robin implementation is different and is done identically on our LNSs too, so you'll lose a little throughput against their LNSs.
--
Erik - Caneris Inc. |
|
 InssomniakThe GlitchPremium
join:2005-04-06
Cayuga, ON
kudos:1 | said by CanerisErik:It should still work against their Juniper LNSs, though not tested in a couple of releases and it won't be as optimal as going against our LNSs. This is because the round-robin implementation is different and is done identically on our LNSs too, so you'll lose a little throughput against their LNSs. Im OK with losing a little bit of throughput, its more important that it is really reliable in handing problems (not saying that tomato/mlppp isnt, but I need more horsepower in a small package). Like line re-syncs, maintenance windows by TSI, etc.
--
OptionsDSL Wireless Internet
»www.optionsdsl.ca |
|
burni13
join:2008-07-22
Sherbrooke, QC | reply to CanerisErik
Is there a way to configure it so it is optimal with TSI ? |
|
|
|
CanerisErikCanerisPremium,VIP
join:2007-10-03
Toronto, ON
kudos:2 | said by burni13:Is there a way to configure it so it is optimal with TSI ? It's not an issue of configuration, but rather implementation. Unless they can change their LNSs, there isn't a way because we're doing MLPPP completely differently in the last release.
This allows you to obtain a tiny bit more speed with us than you would with them. However, if I recall correctly, the difference is less than 0.5Mbps on the downstream and something even smaller on the upstream, so it doesn't matter for most MLPPP users.
--
Erik - Caneris Inc. |
|
