Mailing List Archive: BW metric on L2TP VPDN

BW metric on L2TP VPDN

Sep 12, 2006, 2:54 AM

Post #1 of 3 (2682 views)

Hi,

Can anyone help me regarding setting the correct BW metric on
Virtual-Access interfaces for L2TP VPDN users.

What dictates the setting of this?

For some users we have the BW set to the incoming interface bandwidth,
in our case STM-1/POS:

Virtual-Access4660 is up, line protocol is up
Hardware is Virtual Access interface
Interface is unnumbered. Using address of Loopback0 (194.46.1.65)
MTU 1500 bytes, BW 155520 Kbit,

For other users, we have BW set, accurately or not:

Virtual-Access9 is up, line protocol is up
Hardware is Virtual Access interface
Interface is unnumbered. Using address of Loopback0 (194.46.1.65)
MTU 1500 bytes, BW 565 Kbit

I heard that this was connected to the type of DSLAM?
Is this true?

Any help appreciated.

Thanks,
Mark

_______________________________________________
cisco-bba mailing list
cisco-bba@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-bba

Re: BW metric on L2TP VPDN [ In reply to ]

euang+cisco-bba at lists

Sep 12, 2006, 6:14 AM

Post #2 of 3 (2525 views)

Permalink

On Tue, Sep 12, 2006 at 10:54:09AM +0100, Mark Tohill wrote:

> I heard that this was connected to the type of DSLAM?
> Is this true?

I was going to say "wasn't this in cisco-bba archives", then I noticed it
was you that started the discussion about it quite a while ago ;-)

It's still the case on BT IPStream.

Quickly looking at one device I can see almost exactly 50% with valid i
looking BW and 50% with the interface speed.

--
Euan Galloway
_______________________________________________
cisco-bba mailing list
cisco-bba@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-bba

Re: BW metric on L2TP VPDN [ In reply to ]

steve at stevewrightonline

Sep 13, 2006, 5:31 AM

Post #3 of 3 (2512 views)

Permalink

> It's still the case on BT IPStream.
>
> Quickly looking at one device I can see almost exactly 50% with valid i
> looking BW and 50% with the interface speed.

The cause behind this is the different DSLAM's. The Siemens DSLAMS that BT use, do not transmit the correct bandwidth statement
where as the others do.

I went through a long process with BT trying to identify the cause of this, which DSLAM's are effected etc.. and it was truly a
nightmare.

Ultimately, BT said that this wasn't defined in the service definition and their was little they could do to correct it.

HTH,

S

This message has been scanned for viruses by MailController - www.MailController.altohiway.com
_______________________________________________
cisco-bba mailing list
cisco-bba@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-bba