On Thursday 14 January 2010 12:45:01 pm alexi wrote: > Hello Mark:
Hi Alex.
Sorry for the late response, been rather backed up here :-).
> in the example you mention you said that your bundle is
> using 3xGE and you have a pretty fair load balance
1:1:1...
Not quite - what I did say was:
"We're aggregating 3x Gig-E links between both devices, and
it's working fairly well. Traffic distribution from the
M7i to the 6500 is 1:1:1, while traffic
distribution from the 6500 to the M7i is 1:1:0.7 (but this
direction is governed by other Layer 3 devices
upstream of the 6500)."
> do you know if there is any requirement about having pair
> numbers or power of 2 amount of links in a bundle to get
> a good load balance ?
I'm not familiar with any such requirement, but if the link
you posted from Cisco's web site is anything to go by, it
may make a bit of sense re: what we're seeing in one of the
directions of traffic in our Cisco<=>Juniper LAG.
We do have another Cisco<=>Cisco LAG between two 7600's (one
ours, one our upstreams'), and that's 1:1. But that is 2x
1Gbps links in the LAG.
I could add a 4th link to the 6500<=>M7i LAG, but I'm out of
ports on the M7i. It's really small, sometimes :-).
Cheers,
Mark.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ juniper-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
