<div dir="ltr">Hello,<div><br></div><div>it looks like it's not supported on 10/100GE model we use.</div><div> <i>This feature is only supported on 7210 SAS-Mxp, 7210 SAS-Sx/S 1/10GE,
7210 SAS-R6 (IMMv2 cards), and 7210 SAS-R12 (IMMv2 cards). </i></div><div><br></div><div>Thanks for your reply <br></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">Den sön 30 jan. 2022 kl 23:30 skrev Jonathon Exley <<a href="mailto:Jonathon.Exley@chorus.co.nz">Jonathon.Exley@chorus.co.nz</a>>:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div lang="EN-NZ" style="overflow-wrap: break-word;">
<div class="gmail-m_-6980047805868246086WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>It looks like the SAS-Sx on 20.9 supports hash labels.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Jonathon.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:8pt;font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"><br>
<br>
</span><span><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<div style="border-right:none;border-bottom:none;border-left:none;border-top:1pt solid rgb(225,225,225);padding:3pt 0cm 0cm">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span lang="EN-US">From:</span></b><span lang="EN-US"> alcatel-nsp <<a href="mailto:alcatel-nsp-bounces@puck.nether.net" target="_blank">alcatel-nsp-bounces@puck.nether.net</a>>
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Dejan Tepic<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Monday, 31 January 2022 9:56 am<br>
<b>To:</b> Andrey Elperin <<a href="mailto:mizzy@greenhell.kiev.ua" target="_blank">mizzy@greenhell.kiev.ua</a>><br>
<b>Cc:</b> <a href="mailto:alcatel-nsp@puck.nether.net" target="_blank">alcatel-nsp@puck.nether.net</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [alcatel-nsp] LAG load balance issue 7210 SAS Sx 10G/100G<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Hello and thanks for the input.<u></u><u></u></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">You are spot on :) and this is what I was afraid of. We have an option of using 100G interface as well.<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Hash-labels are not supported on this model as far as I know. <u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">kind regards<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Dejan<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Den sön 30 jan. 2022 kl 21:38 skrev Andrey Elperin <<a href="mailto:mizzy@greenhell.kiev.ua" target="_blank">mizzy@greenhell.kiev.ua</a>>:<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="border-top:none;border-right:none;border-bottom:none;border-left:1pt solid rgb(204,204,204);padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 6pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0cm">
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
Hi Dejan,<br>
<br>
LAG hashing on any type of 7210 boxes is really very dependent on traffic type. I can assume that in your scenario 7210-A and 7210-B are pure LSRs. Also, if you mentioned BNG - it's very probable that you are using PWs between SR1 and 7210-C.<br>
<br>
According to the documentation in LSR role 7210 SAS-Sx have two options to hash LAG traffic:<br>
<br>
1. hash-1: by outer MACs of the Ethernet packets that encapsulates an MPLS packets. There is not enough entropy in your case.<br>
2. hash-2: by combination of ingress port ID, label stack (3 topmost labels) and dst IP address. But dst IP address will be used only if there is IP header right after MPLS header (so it won't be used in case of PWs).<br>
<br>
Looks like that the simpliest way to increase entropy in your case is to increase number of PWs. Also you can try to play with hash-labels, but I'm not sure that it's supported on SAS-Sx now.<br>
<br>
If my guess about your configuration is wrong - pardon me and please provide more details :)<br>
<br>
30.01.2022 19:00, Dejan Tepic пишет:<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5pt;margin-bottom:5pt">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">I’m having issues regarding load balance on links between several 7210 SAS Sx<br>
Here is the topology:<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">SR1----100G----7210-A----2x10G----7210-B----2x10G----7210-C----10G----Accessnode<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Traffic egressing 7210-A is not balanced between two 10G links. Not even close (85/5 in percentage)<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Traffic egressing 7210-B even worse almost zero traffic on one link<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I’v checked interface configuration guide and information about LAG hashing. I’v tested with different algorithms hash-1, hash-2 but nothing is changing.<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> I’m having issues regarding load balance on links between several 7210 SAS Sx<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Here is the topology:<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">SR1----100G----7210-A----2x10G----7210-B----2x10G----7210-C----10G----Accessnode<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Traffic egressing 7210-A is not balanced between two 10G links. Not even close (85/5 in percentage)<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Traffic egressing 7210-B even worse almost zero traffic on one link<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I’v checked interface configuration guide and information about LAG hashing. I’v tested with different algorithms hash-1, hash-2 but nothing is changing.<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I have a ongoing TAC case and TAC suggested to make all ports in a LAG odd or even which i did but it didnt help.<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Latest TAC answer suggest everything is fine ”At this point I dont see this to be an issue until and unless we know the type of traffic that is egressing out of Lag. Its only that the fair distributed of traffic dint happen on to the lag
ports. This could happen when there is not much variation available or variations that get nullify with the traffic streams that are egressing out of the Lag”<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I have updated TAC case with traffic information which is unicast traffic between BNG och Access nodes. <u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12pt">Did anybody out there experienced this and solved it somehow?
<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Kind regards<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Dejan<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<pre>_______________________________________________<u></u><u></u></pre>
<pre>alcatel-nsp mailing list<u></u><u></u></pre>
<pre><a href="mailto:alcatel-nsp@puck.nether.net" target="_blank">alcatel-nsp@puck.nether.net</a><u></u><u></u></pre>
<pre><a href="https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/alcatel-nsp" target="_blank">https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/alcatel-nsp</a><u></u><u></u></pre>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<br>
<br>
<u></u><u></u></p>
<pre>-- <u></u><u></u></pre>
<pre>/me at home<u></u><u></u></pre>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal">_______________________________________________<br>
alcatel-nsp mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:alcatel-nsp@puck.nether.net" target="_blank">alcatel-nsp@puck.nether.net</a><br>
<a href="https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/alcatel-nsp" target="_blank">https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/alcatel-nsp</a><u></u><u></u></p>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
The content of this email (including any attachments) is intended for the addressee only, is confidential and may be legally privileged. If you’ve received this email in error, you shouldn’t read it - please contact me immediately, destroy it, and do not copy
or use any of the content of this email . No confidentiality or privilege is waived or lost by any mis-transmission or error. This communication does not designate an information system for the purposes of Part 4 of the Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017.
Although we have taken reasonable precautions to ensure no viruses are present in this email, we cannot accept responsibility for any loss or damage arising from the use of this email or its attachments.
</div>
</blockquote></div>