[c-nsp] Nightmare for load balancing of L2VPN traffic on CRS (traffic from ME3600)

[Adam Vitkovsky]

> Juniper support this in current code.
If I understood the hashing algorithm correctly Junipers should be looking at L2 header (if the label stack is no deeper than 5 labels -by default). 
So from my understanding Junipers do not need FAT labels right? 


adam
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cisco-nsp [mailto:cisco-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of
> Mark Tinka
> Sent: 14 April 2015 15:37
> To: Tassos Chatzithomaoglou; cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
> Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Nightmare for load balancing of L2VPN traffic on CRS
> (traffic from ME3600)
> 
> 
> 
> On 14/Apr/15 16:27, Tassos Chatzithomaoglou via cisco-nsp wrote:
> > We have been fighting with Cisco for this (L2VPN PW load balancing) for a
> long time.
> > Besides a good (which could have been much better) level of support on
> the ASR9k, it's a shame that all other new equipment doesn't even support
> FAT or any other good alternative.
> > PS: As a temporary workaround, we have increased the number of PWs
> accross the network.
> 
> Juniper support this in current code.
> 
> Use them to get what you want from Cisco - or better yet, just use them.
> 
> Mark.
> _______________________________________________
> 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/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 This email has been scanned for email related threats and delivered safely by Mimecast.
 For more information please visit http://www.mimecast.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------