Re: Lossy cogent p2p experiences?

[Tom Beecher <beecher () beecher cc>]

> Unless you specifically configure true "per-packet" on your LAG:

Well, not exactly the same thing. (But it's my mistake, I was referring to
L3 balancing, not L2 interface stuff.)

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. 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


On Wed, Sep 6, 2023 at 12:04 PM Mark Tinka <mark@tinka.africa> wrote:

> On 9/6/23 17:27, Tom Beecher wrote:
>
> > At least on MX, what Juniper calls 'per-packet' is really 'per-flow'.
>
> Unless you specifically configure true "per-packet" on your LAG:
>
>      set interfaces ae2 aggregated-ether-options load-balance per-packet
>
> I ran per-packet on a Juniper LAG 10 years ago. It produced 100% perfect
> traffic distribution. But the reordering was insane, and the
> applications could not tolerate it.
>
> If you applications can tolerate reordering, per-packet is fine. In the
> public Internet space, it seems we aren't there yet.
>
> Mark.