Thank you to Ian who replied off list with an example of an unproblematic implementation of exactly this. I'm more calm now. :-)
On Mon, 2009-03-23 at 19:09 -0400, Jeff Kell wrote: > AFAIK, etherchannel will select one physical path per flow (based on > src/dst ip/mac), so there is no out-of-order to it, nor any load-sharing > in the sense that it pays any attention to the link load at all. At > least from the Cisco end... I can't speak for all vendors / host adapters. > > If it *can* load-share, cisco-to-cisco, I'd love to be corrected; but > you need something like EIGRP for that (to really look at "load") or > equal-cost paths and per-packet load sharing. You are of course right, but I think this is really a discussion about what the term "load sharing" means. From my perspective the "load" is all the traffic, and the etherchannel hashing "shares" this load between several paths. It is not "fair" or "intelligent" load-sharing in the same way as per-packet ECMP, MLPPP or actual "load balancing" is, but it does still split the load. I was basically trying to say that I didn't consider OoO a problem in this context. My question was more about what the EC itself and maybe LACP would say about it. And if it would be wise to use some specific hashing, like staying away from L4 informations to not confuse certain hosts. (We always use the default src-dst-ip anyway.) We'll go through with and tomorrow evening GMT. I'll make sure to update if we run into any problems. :-) Regards, Peter _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
