Re: Lossy cogent p2p experiences?

[David Bass <davidbass570 () gmail com>]

Per packet LB is one of those ideas that at a conceptual level are great,
but in practice are obvious that they’re out of touch with reality.  Kind
of like the EIGRP protocol from Cisco and using the load, reliability, and
MTU metrics.

On Wed, Sep 6, 2023 at 1:13 PM Mark Tinka <mark@tinka.africa> wrote:

> On 9/6/23 18:52, Tom Beecher wrote:
>
> > Well, not exactly the same thing. (But it's my mistake, I was
> > referring to L3 balancing, not L2 interface stuff.)
>
> Fair enough.
>
>
> > load-balance per-packet will cause massive reordering, because it's
> > random spray , caring about nothing except equal loading of the
> > members. It's a last resort option that will cause tons of reordering.
> > (And they call that out quite clearly in docs.) If you don't care
> > about reordering it's great.
> >
> > load-balance adaptive generally did a decent enough job last time I
> > used it much.
>
> Yep, pretty much my experience too.
>
>
> > stateful was hit or miss ; sometimes it tested amazing, other times
> > not so much. But it wasn't a primary requirement so I never dove into why
>
> Never tried stateful.
>
> Moving 802.1Q trunk from N x 10Gbps LAG's to native 100Gbps links
> resolved this load balancing conundrum for us. Of course, it works well
> because we spread these router<=>switch links across several 100Gbps
> ports, so no single trunk is ever that busy, even for customers buying N
> x 10Gbps services.
>
> Mark.