Which Load-balancing design is better?

Moderators: Dante, Sarah

Post Reply
luke_bromirski
Posts: 8
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2019 2:56 am

Re: Which Load-balancing design is better?

Post by luke_bromirski » Sun Oct 20, 2019 11:03 am

TL;DR version:

So first of all, second option won't work at all - RSVP-TE will send the LSP over single specific path in this setup.
If you want to load-balance "in L3", you need two tunnels - one over each of the links.

For "L2" load balancing, here are things you may need to consider:

For EoMPLS traffic, 6704 can't load balance at all. This is known limitation. No amount of port-channel magic will help you there, one path will be selected and one link used for ingress operations.

If you have less than 4 labels and IPv4 traffic, 6704 will balance traffic using IPv4 src/dst pair - so if you have enough sources and destinations, the load balancing may be very good.

For more than 3 labels, load balancing will be on topmost label if you configure 'port-channel load-balance mpls'.

luke_bromirski
Posts: 8
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2019 2:56 am

Re: Which Load-balancing design is better?

Post by luke_bromirski » Mon Oct 21, 2019 12:18 pm

Running MPLS on 7600/6500 is full of suprises :) Try to take a look at the release notes and then look for old Cisco Live! presentations.

Post Reply