[c-nsp] 6500 xconnect port-channel?

[Peter Rathlev]

On Wed, 2010-07-14 at 09:49 -0400, Benjamin Lovell wrote:
> I would test this for load-sharing with your traffic profile. It's
> been a while since I looked at this but I think the port channel
> hashing criteria is limited when xconnect terminates to a
> port-channel. 
> 
> If I remember correctly we cannot do port channel hash on IP header
> when coming off an EoMPLS tunnel. So if all/alot of traffic has same
> MAC then you will get sub-optimal load-sharing. 

I see. Maybe a better idea is to create to independent port-mode ports
and then let the CE-devices run LACP through these? Each side could the
load-share as they like, and that would stay closer to the "pseudo-wire"
concept I guess.

This is for inter-DC L2 connections, and we deliver two distinct EoMPLS
connections (traffic engineered to use completely different paths and
networking devices) that the CE-devices run Rapid-PVST on top of. The
idea was to give them 2 x 2 Gb/s connections instead of 2 x 1 Gb/s, seen
from the CE as two port-channels. (The two members of each port-channel
would use the same TE LSP, since it's just for more bandwidth.)

-- 
Peter