> Juniper support this in current code. If I understood the hashing algorithm correctly Junipers should be looking at L2 header (if the label stack is no deeper than 5 labels -by default). So from my understanding Junipers do not need FAT labels right?
adam > -----Original Message----- > From: cisco-nsp [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of > Mark Tinka > Sent: 14 April 2015 15:37 > To: Tassos Chatzithomaoglou; [email protected] > Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Nightmare for load balancing of L2VPN traffic on CRS > (traffic from ME3600) > > > > On 14/Apr/15 16:27, Tassos Chatzithomaoglou via cisco-nsp wrote: > > We have been fighting with Cisco for this (L2VPN PW load balancing) for a > long time. > > Besides a good (which could have been much better) level of support on > the ASR9k, it's a shame that all other new equipment doesn't even support > FAT or any other good alternative. > > PS: As a temporary workaround, we have increased the number of PWs > accross the network. > > Juniper support this in current code. > > Use them to get what you want from Cisco - or better yet, just use them. > > Mark. > _______________________________________________ > cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp > archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This email has been scanned for email related threats and delivered safely by Mimecast. For more information please visit http://www.mimecast.com --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
