MPP

MPP

Post by Trev Te » Sun, 19 Mar 1995 14:45:16



I am trying to get my Digiboard Datafire card to Bond with an Ascend
Router. I have been told (by Digiboard) that the Ascend Routers do not
support MPP, but that Ascend is working on this. My Internet Provider
does not really understand what MPP is - or why I need it to bond -
neither do I. Can anyone out there tell me (or point me towards) what
is MPP. Is it really a Standard? Is it true that Ascend Routers do not
currently support MPP? When might they support MPP?

TIA!


 
 
 

MPP

Post by Bob Larribe » Mon, 20 Mar 1995 00:44:27



>I am trying to get my Digiboard Datafire card to Bond with an Ascend
>Router. I have been told (by Digiboard) that the Ascend Routers do not
>support MPP, but that Ascend is working on this. My Internet Provider
>does not really understand what MPP is - or why I need it to bond -
>neither do I. Can anyone out there tell me (or point me towards) what
>is MPP. Is it really a Standard? Is it true that Ascend Routers do not
>currently support MPP? When might they support MPP?

>TIA!



MPP is really PPP Mulitlink Protocol (PPP MP) that is defined in the IETF's RFC 1717.  It is an extension to
PPP that supports the ability to send PPP over independent links in order to aggregate their bandwidth.  For
example you can use PPP MP on a BRI to aggregate the two B-channels to give you an effective 112/128 kb/s wire
speed.

Ascend's current MPP will aggregate B-channels but does not currently interoperate with the PPP MP
implementations from other vendors, e.g., Digiboard.  You can use Ascend's MPP between two Ascend products.

The California ISDN Users' Group is holding a PPP MP Interoperability Workshop next week that will provide
more than 20 vendors the ability to test their products together.  We will be publishing information on
interoperable products in hard copy and on a WWW server as it becomes available.  We will be discussing the
status of this work at our spring conference at the LAX Marriott on May 31 and June 1.  We will post the
results of the workshop in this news group in a week or so.

A number of ISDN vendors will be announcing and demonstrating PPP MP at Interop.  Look them up if you are
there.


we will send you a copy of our latest newsletter and information about our spring conference.  You can also
send mail to me.

Bob Larribeau
ISDN Consultant
San Francisco

 
 
 

MPP

Post by Vernon Schryv » Mon, 20 Mar 1995 00:07:22



>I am trying to get my Digiboard Datafire card to Bond with an Ascend
>Router. I have been told (by Digiboard) that the Ascend Routers do not
>support MPP, but that Ascend is working on this. My Internet Provider
>does not really understand what MPP is - or why I need it to bond -
>neither do I. Can anyone out there tell me (or point me towards) what
>is MPP. Is it really a Standard? Is it true that Ascend Routers do not
>currently support MPP? When might they support MPP?
> ...

There is a standard called "The PPP Multilink Protocol (MP)".  It is
documented RFC 1717.  It is useful for getting more than 64Kbit/sec from
combinations of modems, ISDN links, leased lines, and/or wet string.

Based on traffic this newsgroup, Ascend has a protocol called MPP.  It
is a proprietary multilink protocol very similar to MP, reportedly an
extension of MP.  It is not clear to me whether it interoperates with
systems using MP.

MP involves chopping packets into smaller packets called fragments and
distributing them over the links in the multilink bundle, and reassembly
the fragments into packets at the far end based on 2- or 4-byte headers
in the fragments.

BONDING is something else entirely, involving sending individual bytes
over links in the bundle, but only after the relative delays of the
individual links have been measured.  BONDING involves recovering the
ordered stream of bytes that make up the circuit (i.e. data, voice or
whatever) at the far end based on when the bytes come out of the individual
links.

BONDING is the sort of solution you would expect the telephony guys to
come up, with while MP is what you would expect the packet switching
guys to produce.  For data packets, I think MP is the better approach,
but I'm probably biased.