>From a load sharing point of view this is likely to work out better as then >the CEs have all the load-sharing options available to them. LACP, STP, UDLP, >et al pass transparently over port mode xconnect.
-Ben On Jul 14, 2010, at 12:13 PM, Peter Rathlev wrote: > On Wed, 2010-07-14 at 09:49 -0400, Benjamin Lovell wrote: >> I would test this for load-sharing with your traffic profile. It's >> been a while since I looked at this but I think the port channel >> hashing criteria is limited when xconnect terminates to a >> port-channel. >> >> If I remember correctly we cannot do port channel hash on IP header >> when coming off an EoMPLS tunnel. So if all/alot of traffic has same >> MAC then you will get sub-optimal load-sharing. > > I see. Maybe a better idea is to create to independent port-mode ports > and then let the CE-devices run LACP through these? Each side could the > load-share as they like, and that would stay closer to the "pseudo-wire" > concept I guess. > > This is for inter-DC L2 connections, and we deliver two distinct EoMPLS > connections (traffic engineered to use completely different paths and > networking devices) that the CE-devices run Rapid-PVST on top of. The > idea was to give them 2 x 2 Gb/s connections instead of 2 x 1 Gb/s, seen > from the CE as two port-channels. (The two members of each port-channel > would use the same TE LSP, since it's just for more bandwidth.) > > -- > Peter > _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
