Lossy cogent p2p experiences?

Fri Sep 1 11:49:27 UTC 2023

On 9/1/23 10:50, Saku Ytti wrote:

> It is a very plausible theory, and everyone has this problem to a
> lesser or greater degree. There was a time when edge interfaces were
> much lower capacity than backbone interfaces, but I don't think that
> time will ever come back. So this problem is systemic.
> Luckily there is quite a reasonable solution to the problem, called
> 'adaptive load balancing', where software monitors balancing, and
> biases the hash_result => egress_interface tables to improve balancing
> when dealing with elephant flows.

We didn't have much success with FAT when the PE was an MX480 and the P 
a CRS-X (FP40 + FP140 line cards). This was regardless of whether the 
core links were native IP/MPLS or 802.1AX.

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.

Of course, our policy is to never transport EoMPLS servics in excess of 
40Gbps. Once a customer requires 41Gbps of EoMPLS service or more, we 
move them to EoDWDM. Cheaper and more scalable that way. It does help 
that we operate both a Transport and IP/MPLS network, but I understand 
this may not be the case for most networks.

Mark.