[c-nsp] mpls and etherchannel

Mark Tinka mark.tinka at seacom.mu
Thu Apr 21 10:48:18 EDT 2016

On 21/Apr/16 14:17, Lukas Tribus wrote:

> What I meant (with "generically speaking"), is that there is no reason for
> a box to differ in the load-balancing behavior just because of ECMP vs LACP,
> because the NP lookup to create the load balancing hash has the same
> exact cost (its not like LACP is a encapsulation so the NP has to look
> deeper into the packet).
> That doesn't mean all boxes use the same load balancing hash algorithm
> for ECMP and LACP, it just means that there is no reason this data
> plane load balancing algorithm has to differ between LACP and
> I'm talking about the load-balancing hash here. Its obvious that
> ECMP can load-balance in all kinds of l3 topologies where as
> LACP only balances towards the same box.
> ASR9k is a platform that behaves the same from a load-balancing
> hash perspective with both ECMP and LACP afaik.

If I can get the time, I'd like to put an ASR9000 in the topology that
my MX is currently having to load balance LACP traffic. The MX does not
do well with all kinds of payloads (IP, Ethernet, e.t.c.). I'd be keen
to see whether the ASR9000 can do better with the same stock configuration.

All our existing ASR9000 are handling only predictable IP flows, so
nothing interesting there.

> Sure. You know what you are doing, you probably tested this extensively
> before deploying and knew about the OOO danger. But its not someting
> I would recommend anyone without thorough understanding of the
> problem.



More information about the cisco-nsp mailing list