On 9/7/23 09:31, Benny Lyne Amorsen wrote:
Unfortunately that is not strict round-robin load balancing.
Oh? What is it then, if it's not spraying successive packets across member links?
I do not know about any equipment that offers actual round-robin load-balancing.
Cisco had both per-destination and per-packet. Is that not it in the networking world?
Juniper's solution will cause way too much packet reordering for TCP to handle. I am arguing that strict round-robin load balancing will function better than hash-based in a lot of real-world scenarios.
Ummh, no, it won't. If it did, it would have been widespread. But it's not. Mark.
