Question : MLPPP on a Cisco 2611 router

I have two serial T1 links connected using Cisco 2611 routers on either side. I want to combine the two T1s into one virtual link to provide better bandwidth management and fault-tolerance.

I am expecting that failure of one T1 will not cause TCP connections to break.

Is MLPPP recommended on Cisco 2600 series? I saw some comments about Cisco not having a good implementation of MLPPP on routers less than 7xxx. Is that true?

Let me have your ideas on this.

Also, if MLPPP is not recommended, and if I cannot upgrade the routers, what other options do I have?

Answer : MLPPP on a Cisco 2611 router

MLPP is not recommended because once you setup a virtual interface, then all packets are processed vs switched. That would increase the processor load quite heavily and why it is not recommended on lower-end routers.

As long as both T1 links terminate at the same place, then ip cef is the best solution. CEF gives you a choice between per-packet and per-destination load balancing. With two simple static default routes and ip cef turned on, you're good to go.

I have this same setup on a 2611 with two t1's and it works beautifully. I keep mrtg watching the load-balancing and it is almost perfect. I chose per-destination load sharing because my clients connect to a database and I think it is a better solution for us. If most of your traffic is simple email or web traffic, then per-packet might be fine.

There are more links at the bottom of this link that will go into excrutiating detail on how to set it up.
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/tech/tk648/tk365/technologies_tech_note09186a0080094806.shtml