On Wed, 2010-07-14 at 09:49 -0400, Benjamin Lovell wrote: > I would test this for load-sharing with your traffic profile. It's > been a while since I looked at this but I think the port channel > hashing criteria is limited when xconnect terminates to a > port-channel. > > If I remember correctly we cannot do port channel hash on IP header > when coming off an EoMPLS tunnel. So if all/alot of traffic has same > MAC then you will get sub-optimal load-sharing.
I see. Maybe a better idea is to create to independent port-mode ports and then let the CE-devices run LACP through these? Each side could the load-share as they like, and that would stay closer to the "pseudo-wire" concept I guess. This is for inter-DC L2 connections, and we deliver two distinct EoMPLS connections (traffic engineered to use completely different paths and networking devices) that the CE-devices run Rapid-PVST on top of. The idea was to give them 2 x 2 Gb/s connections instead of 2 x 1 Gb/s, seen from the CE as two port-channels. (The two members of each port-channel would use the same TE LSP, since it's just for more bandwidth.) -- Peter _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/