[c-nsp] mpls and etherchannel

Mark Tinka mark.tinka at seacom.mu
Wed Apr 20 16:41:40 EDT 2016

On 20/Apr/16 20:12, Lukas Tribus wrote:

> If we would know the platform, we could tell you more, but generically
> speaking, ECMP doesn't behave any better or worse than port-channeling.

Beg to differ on this one.

We have converted some LACP links to native IP/MPLS to get ECMP because
of issues with some of the payload not being equally hashed across the
LACP member links.

> Stop it. Don't do per packet load-balancing. Repeat after me:
> I won't per packet-load balance.

We have a practical use-case where per-packet load balancing works
better than per-flow load balancing.

This has worked without issue as the fibre connections are inside the
data centre (less than 10m between the devices). This is on a Juniper MX


More information about the cisco-nsp mailing list