On 20/Apr/16 20:12, Lukas Tribus wrote:
> If we would know the platform, we could tell you more, but generically > speaking, ECMP doesn't behave any better or worse than port-channeling. Beg to differ on this one. We have converted some LACP links to native IP/MPLS to get ECMP because of issues with some of the payload not being equally hashed across the LACP member links. > > Stop it. Don't do per packet load-balancing. Repeat after me: > I won't per packet-load balance. We have a practical use-case where per-packet load balancing works better than per-flow load balancing. This has worked without issue as the fibre connections are inside the data centre (less than 10m between the devices). This is on a Juniper MX router. Mark. _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
