Lossy cogent p2p experiences?

Fri Sep 8 06:12:51 UTC 2023

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.