Re: Which Load-balancing design is better?
Posted: 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'.
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'.