> > Unless you specifically configure true "per-packet" on your LAG: >
Well, not exactly the same thing. (But it's my mistake, I was referring to L3 balancing, not L2 interface stuff.) load-balance per-packet will cause massive reordering, because it's random spray , caring about nothing except equal loading of the members. It's a last resort option that will cause tons of reordering. (And they call that out quite clearly in docs.) If you don't care about reordering it's great. load-balance adaptive generally did a decent enough job last time I used it much. stateful was hit or miss ; sometimes it tested amazing, other times not so much. But it wasn't a primary requirement so I never dove into why On Wed, Sep 6, 2023 at 12:04 PM Mark Tinka <mark@tinka.africa> wrote: > > > On 9/6/23 17:27, Tom Beecher wrote: > > > > > At least on MX, what Juniper calls 'per-packet' is really 'per-flow'. > > Unless you specifically configure true "per-packet" on your LAG: > > set interfaces ae2 aggregated-ether-options load-balance per-packet > > I ran per-packet on a Juniper LAG 10 years ago. It produced 100% perfect > traffic distribution. But the reordering was insane, and the > applications could not tolerate it. > > If you applications can tolerate reordering, per-packet is fine. In the > public Internet space, it seems we aren't there yet. > > Mark. >
