Re: Lossy cogent p2p experiences?

[Mike Hammett <nanog () ics-il net>]

and I would say the OP wasn't even about elephant flows, just about a network that can't deliver anything acceptable. 




----- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 
http://www.ics-il.com 

Midwest-IX 
http://www.midwest-ix.com 

----- Original Message -----

From: "Saku Ytti" <saku () ytti fi> 
To: "Mark Tinka" <mark@tinka.africa> 
Cc: nanog () nanog org 
Sent: Friday, September 1, 2023 8:29:12 AM 
Subject: Re: Lossy cogent p2p experiences? 

On Fri, 1 Sept 2023 at 14:54, Mark Tinka <mark@tinka.africa> wrote: 

> When we switched our P devices to PTX1000 and PTX10001, we've had 
> surprisingly good performance of all manner of traffic across native 
> IP/MPLS and 802.1AX links, even without explicitly configuring FAT for 
> EoMPLS traffic. 

PTX and MX as LSR look inside pseudowire to see if it's IP (dangerous 
guess to make for LSR), CSR/ASR9k does not. So PTX and MX LSR will 
balance your pseudowire even without FAT. I've had no problem having 
ASR9k LSR balancing FAT PWs. 

However this is a bit of a sidebar, because the original problem is 
about elephant flows, which FAT does not help with. But adaptive 
balancing does. 


-- 
++ytti