Ascend Archive
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: (ASCEND) MAX stacking



On Tue, 16 Sep 1997, Joseph Bridgewater wrote:

> Jason,
> 
> I'm wondering about a couple of things.  
> 
> Are you going to have 80+ maxen on the same Ethernet collision segment, or
> are you going through a switch?
> 
> Is their link towards the cloud ultimately via some high speed interface
> such as 100 mbps or better?

Correct, Everything is 100M in a Switched Enviroment. 


> 
> The reason I'm wondering is that even just two 4000's fully configured and
> loaded but NOT using stacking, could potentially saturate a 10 mbps LAN
> segment. 

 Are we talking fully loaded with Analog calls or Analog calls and HDLC
calls? Here is what I'm actually seeing right now on this wire I have
approx 85 Max's and 4 fully loaded TNT's running into 2 interfaces on a 
7206.

FastEthernet5/0 is up, line protocol is up 
  Hardware is DEC21140, address is 0060.7057.9c28 (bia 0060.7057.9c28)
  Description: Ascend Ethernet, yea, ALL OF THEM.
  Internet address is 10.11.64.2/24
  MTU 1500 bytes, BW 100000 Kbit, DLY 100 usec, rely 255/255, load 31/255
  Encapsulation ARPA, loopback not set, keepalive set (10 sec), fdx,
100BaseTX/FX
  ARP type: ARPA, ARP Timeout 04:00:00
  Last input 00:00:00, output 00:00:00, output hang never
  Last clearing of "show interface" counters never
  Queueing strategy: fifo
  Output queue 0/40, 11628 drops; input queue 1/75, 1487 drops
  5 minute input rate 3542000 bits/sec, 4815 packets/sec
  5 minute output rate 12335000 bits/sec, 2351 packets/sec
     1605450923 packets input, 1801007490 bytes, 7 no buffer
     Received 45736304 broadcasts, 0 runts, 0 giants
     3 input errors, 3 CRC, 0 frame, 0 overrun, 0 ignored, 0 abort
     0 watchdog, 0 multicast
     3 input packets with dribble condition detected
     1163750319 packets output, 3810760420 bytes, 96228 underruns
     96228 output errors, 0 collisions, 150 interface resets
     0 babbles, 0 late collision, 0 deferred
     0 lost carrier, 0 no carrier
     0 output buffer failures, 0 output buffers swapped out

So thats what 3MB? I should be fine. 

 The RUBB says to the effect that stacking can add a very
> significant amount of traffic overhead.  I'm wondering how you're going to
> avoid bottle-necking on your LAN.

Shouldn't be a bottleneck, At least I hope not :)

Jason Nealis
Director Internet Operations
Network Access
Erols Internet



> 
> 
> Joseph
> 
> At 03:30 PM 9/15/97 -0400, Jason Nealis wrote:
> >
> > Cool, But I'm wondering what problems await me when I split them over 80+
> >maxes on the same wire. Hopefully it will work as well as it does for you.
> >
> >Jason
> >
> >
> >On Sat, 13 Sep 1997, Jonah Yokubaitis wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, 12 Sep 1997, Jason Nealis wrote:
> >> 
> >> |
> >> | I haven't seend anyone using it yet, I too am considering stacking
> >> |shortly, But will most likely await full deployment of K56 before I 
> >> |tackle stacking. 
> >> |
> >> |Jason Nealis
> >> |
> >> 
> >> We have had GREAT luck with max stacking...I have split channels right
> >> now over 2 MAXen. I am using a P75 though, but we get no complaints
> >> for our dialup isdn people..
> >> 
> >> Jonah
> >> 
> >> Jonah Barron Yokubaitis    | Austin|San Antonio|Houston
> >> President                  | Dallas|Fort Worth|Boerne
> >> Texas.Net	 	   | Georgetown|Dripping Springs		
> >> http://www.texas.net       | Making 56k affordable
> >> 
> >> 
> >
> >++ Ascend Users Mailing List ++
> >To unsubscribe:	send unsubscribe to ascend-users-request@bungi.com
> >To get FAQ'd:	<http://www.nealis.net/ascend/faq>
> >
> ++ Ascend Users Mailing List ++
> To unsubscribe:	send unsubscribe to ascend-users-request@bungi.com
> To get FAQ'd:	<http://www.nealis.net/ascend/faq>
> 

++ Ascend Users Mailing List ++
To unsubscribe:	send unsubscribe to ascend-users-request@bungi.com
To get FAQ'd:	<http://www.nealis.net/ascend/faq>
References: