[c-nsp] Pseudowire and EtherChannel

[Arda Balkanay]

you can configure xconnect at portchannel interfaces.
But for load-balance ether-channel makes load balance as follows:

c076_01#sh etherchannel load-balance
EtherChannel Load-Balancing Configuration:
        dst-mac
        mpls label-ip

EtherChannel Load-Balancing Addresses Used Per-Protocol:
Non-IP: Destination MAC address
  IPv4: Destination MAC address
  IPv6: Destination MAC address (routed packets)
        Destination IP address (bridged packets)
  MPLS: Label or IP
c076_01#

For eompls you can only make load balance with label. I'm not sure if it is
mpls header (with exp bits) or just the label value but if it is just the
label value, you can not load balance that traffic in my opinion, if it is
mpls header you can load balance by changing exp bits according to the
volume of traffic but it is not the real load balancing it is just a work
around.
Please correct me if I am wrong.
Kind Regards
Arda




On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 10:48 AM, Elmar K. Bins <elmi at 4ever.de> wrote:

> vegasnetman at gmail.com (Ozar) wrote:
>
> > Lets say I have customer who needs 2 gig from A to Z that I am going to
> > transport by Pseudowire...
> >
> > Should I etherchannel the ports and make my xconnect in the Port Channel
> > interface, or just transport each gig interface separately, and customer
> > handles all the aggregation?
>
> I would not count on the packets arriving in-order. Pseudowire is usually
> based on MPLS-switching, but it could also be tunnelled.
>
> I'd do some dynamic routing including Multipath (for the balancing) on
> the links.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
> archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
>