Yes, you'd better drop all the hash+loadbalance+linkindex conf (by the way, on MX the "hash-key" knob is only for DPC cards, 10+ years old).
However about the LAG itself, if you want something reliable you really should use LACP instead of static LAG. Static LAGs, a good way to get your traffic lost... > Le 19 juil. 2019 à 22:02, Gert Doering <[email protected]> a écrit : > > On Fri, Jul 19, 2019 at 07:56:47PM +0000, Eric Van Tol wrote: >> On 7/19/19, 3:40 PM, "Gert Doering" <[email protected]> wrote: >> That sounds a bit weird... why should the device care how the other >> end balances its packets? Never heard anyone state this, and I can't >> come up with a reason why. >> >> *sigh* >> >> I'd been focusing way too much on the config portion of the documentation >> that I completely skimmed over the very first paragraph: >> >> "MX Series routers with Aggregated Ethernet PICs support symmetrical >> load balancing on an 802.3ad LAG. This feature is significant when >> two MX Series routers are connected transparently through deep >> packet inspection (DPI) devices over an LAG bundle. > > Yes, *that* makes total sense :-) (I was thinking about "is it something > with stateful inspection?" but since this - inside MX or Cisco - usually > operates "on the ae/port-channel level" and not the individual member, > it didn't make sense either) _______________________________________________ juniper-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
