Lossy cogent p2p experiences?

Sat Sep 2 07:23:45 UTC 2023

On 9/2/23 08:43, Saku Ytti wrote:

> What in particular are you missing?
> As I explained, PTX/MX both allow for example speculating on transit
> pseudowires having CW on them. Which is non-default and requires
> 'zero-control-word'. You should be looking at 'hash-key' on PTX and
> 'enhanced-hash-key' on MX.  You don't appear to have a single stanza
> configured, but I do wonder what you wanted to configure when you
> noticed the missing ability to do so.

Sorry for the confusion - let me provide some background context since 
we deployed the PTX ages ago (and core nodes are typically boring).

The issue we ran into was to do with our deployment tooling, which was 
based on 'enhanced-hash-key' that is required for MPC's on the MX.

The tooling used to deploy the PTX was largely built on what we use to 
deploy the MX, with tweaks of critically different items. At the time, 
we did not know that the PTX required 'hash-key' as opposed to 
'enhanced-hash-key'. So nothing got deployed on the PTX specifically for 
load balancing (we might have assumed it to have been non-existent or 
incomplete feature at the time).

So the "surprise" I speak of is how well it all worked with load 
balancing across LAG's and EoMPLS traffic compared to the CRS-X, despite 
not having any load balancing features explicitly configured, which is 
still the case today.

It works, so we aren't keen to break it.

Mark.