Re: [j-nsp] Can per flow load-balancing result in TCP session drops?

- From: juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net [mailto:juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of MSusiva Sent: Monday, June 27, 2011 8:07 AM To: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net Subject: [j-nsp] Can per flow load-balancing result in TCP session drops? Hi experts, Is MX80 a flow based or pack

Re: [j-nsp] Can per flow load-balancing result in TCP session drops?

On Jun 27, 2011, at 8:07 AM, MSusiva wrote: > Hi experts, > > Is MX80 a flow based or packet based router? the trio chipset and by extention all MX routers are packet based devices. flow cached routing hasn't worked in the internet core for a long time. > With asymmetric routing, will the TCP

[j-nsp] Can per flow load-balancing result in TCP session drops?

Hi experts, Is MX80 a flow based or packet based router? With asymmetric routing, will the TCP session ever get established. Suppose if SYN packet goes out through one interface and the SYN+ACK is received on another interface, will this router drop this SYN+ACK as this behavior is seen in J seri