Hi,
"Per packet" load balancing is actually "per-flow load balancing" on an
M10i/M7i.
The command is a hold-over from the very old Internet Processor version that
did "per packet" on the M40/M20 etc... which Juniper has "left as-is" in JunOS.
It does tend to throw people for a loop when they see it (and raise the
objections to it's use by the statements you have described earlier).
So, have no fear to do the following:
policy-options {
/* Even though this says per-packet, it really means per-flow. Its a
throwback for command compatibility */
policy-statement Load-Balance-Per-Flow {
term enable-load-balancing {
then {
load-balance per-packet;
}
}
}
routing-options {
forwarding-table {
export Load-Balance-Per-Flow;
}
}
.. your videoconferencing and VoIP packets will indeed arrive "in order".
Regards,
- Chris.
On 2010-04-19, at 3:29 PM, Justin M. Streiner wrote:
> I have an M10i connected to an M7i at a remote location using two DS3s.
> Attempts thus far to get traffic to share both links relatively evenly have
> not gone well. All of the traffic will typically use only one of the links,
> so it gets saturated while the second like is barely even touched. JTAC
> suggested per-packet load-sharing, however I would like to avoid that because
> of the possibility of packets arriving out of order which could make
> latency/jitter-sensitive applications (IP video conferencing, etc) unhappy.
> JTAC later suggested that per-packet load-sharing in JUNOS parlance doesn't
> necessarily mean per-packet load-
> sharing (naturally :) ).
_______________________________________________
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
