Hi all,
I need to bring up a 2x10G LAG between an MX204 and a customer's ASR 1002-X and I want to make sure the links get load balanced as closely and reliably as possible. Junos docs say, "The hash-computation for the forward and reverse flow must be identical." They go on to detail how to configure a link index to each physical port and that Trio chipsets require symmetrical load-balancing. The LAG will be bridged through to one of the 40G uplinks on the MX204. Here's my config for the Juniper side:
chassis {
aggregated-devices {
ethernet {
device-count 1;
}
}
fpc 0 {
pic 1 {
hash-key {
family {
multiservice {
payload {
ip {
layer-3;
}
}
}
}
}
}
}
}
interfaces {
et-0/0/0 {
per-unit-scheduler;
flexible-vlan-tagging;
encapsulation flexible-ethernet-services;
}
unit 2 {
encapsulation vlan-bridge;
vlan-id 3190;
family bridge;
}
}
xe-0/1/0 {
gigether-options {
802.3ad {
ae0;
link-index 0;
}
}
}
xe-0/1/1 {
gigether-options {
802.3ad {
ae0;
link-index 1;
}
}
}
ae0 {
encapsulation ethernet-bridge;
aggregated-ether-options {
no-flow-control;
minimum-links 1;
link-speed 10g;
}
unit 0 {
family bridge;
}
}
}
forwarding-options {
hash-key {
family multiservice {
payload {
ip {
layer-3;
}
}
symmetric-hash;
}
}
enhanced-hash-key {
family multiservice {
no-mac-addresses;
}
symmetric;
}
}
On the Cisco, I am going to suggest:
port-channel load-balance-hash-algo src-dst-ip
!
interface TenGigabitEthernet0/0/0
no ip address
channel-group 1 link 1
!
interface TenGigabitEthernet0/0/1
no ip address
channel-group 1 link 2
!
interface Port-channel1
no negotiation auto
ip address 10.45.98.10 255.255.255.0
load-balance flow
!
Can anyone tell me if there is anything I'm missing here? I did not include here my CoS config to help with serialization delay issues. I don't have an ASR 1002-X to test with and the ASR 920s I do have available to me don’t have full command parity with the 1002-X. I’m also not sure of the chipset differences between the 1002-X and the 920 model. Any suggestions appreciated.
Thanks,
evt
_______________________________________________
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
I need to bring up a 2x10G LAG between an MX204 and a customer's ASR 1002-X and I want to make sure the links get load balanced as closely and reliably as possible. Junos docs say, "The hash-computation for the forward and reverse flow must be identical." They go on to detail how to configure a link index to each physical port and that Trio chipsets require symmetrical load-balancing. The LAG will be bridged through to one of the 40G uplinks on the MX204. Here's my config for the Juniper side:
chassis {
aggregated-devices {
ethernet {
device-count 1;
}
}
fpc 0 {
pic 1 {
hash-key {
family {
multiservice {
payload {
ip {
layer-3;
}
}
}
}
}
}
}
}
interfaces {
et-0/0/0 {
per-unit-scheduler;
flexible-vlan-tagging;
encapsulation flexible-ethernet-services;
}
unit 2 {
encapsulation vlan-bridge;
vlan-id 3190;
family bridge;
}
}
xe-0/1/0 {
gigether-options {
802.3ad {
ae0;
link-index 0;
}
}
}
xe-0/1/1 {
gigether-options {
802.3ad {
ae0;
link-index 1;
}
}
}
ae0 {
encapsulation ethernet-bridge;
aggregated-ether-options {
no-flow-control;
minimum-links 1;
link-speed 10g;
}
unit 0 {
family bridge;
}
}
}
forwarding-options {
hash-key {
family multiservice {
payload {
ip {
layer-3;
}
}
symmetric-hash;
}
}
enhanced-hash-key {
family multiservice {
no-mac-addresses;
}
symmetric;
}
}
On the Cisco, I am going to suggest:
port-channel load-balance-hash-algo src-dst-ip
!
interface TenGigabitEthernet0/0/0
no ip address
channel-group 1 link 1
!
interface TenGigabitEthernet0/0/1
no ip address
channel-group 1 link 2
!
interface Port-channel1
no negotiation auto
ip address 10.45.98.10 255.255.255.0
load-balance flow
!
Can anyone tell me if there is anything I'm missing here? I did not include here my CoS config to help with serialization delay issues. I don't have an ASR 1002-X to test with and the ASR 920s I do have available to me don’t have full command parity with the 1002-X. I’m also not sure of the chipset differences between the 1002-X and the 920 model. Any suggestions appreciated.
Thanks,
evt
_______________________________________________
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
