From: Mas Kato (tealp729@xxxxxxxx)
Date: Tue Jun 12 2001 - 17:19:05 GMT-3
Indeed, it'd be interesting to hear from the guys and gals working in
ultra-high-performance environments. One would think Netflow and/or dCEF
could functionally offer something like "per-socket" load-balancing...
Mas
-----Original Message-----
From: Chuck Church [mailto:cchurch@MAGNACOM.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2001 11:51 AM
To: Mas Kato; 'CCIELAB'
Subject: RE: WFQ and BRIs
Good article. Brings up a question, at least to me anyway. Since
packet
reordering is so bad, is it the general consensus of the ISP world to
load
balance based on per-destination rather than per-packet? It's just
something that I've been wondering about for some time.
Thanks,
Chuck
-----Original Message-----
From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com]On Behalf Of
Mas Kato
Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2001 2:15 PM
To: 'Rick Stephens'; 'CCIELAB'
Subject: RE: WFQ and BRIs
Ah! Just like a heavily loaded Juniper box! <G>
http://www.lightreading.com/document.asp?doc_id=4009&page_number=8
Thanks Rick!
-----Original Message-----
From: Rick Stephens [mailto:rstephens@wantec.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2001 10:38 AM
To: 'Mas Kato'; 'CCIELAB'
Subject: RE: WFQ and BRIs
Here is what I turned up. This is related to bridging, but it appears to
be
much more widely disabled in standard configurations. Probably for
similar
issues.
CSCdm45164
Enabling weighted fair queuing (WFQ) on an interface that belongs to a
transparent bridging bridge group may cause packets that are egressing
that
interface to be sent out of order. This situation causes failure in
terminated and bridged Logical Link Control 2 (LLC2) sessions.
Workaround: Disable WFQ using the no fair-queue interface configuration
command.
-----Original Message-----
From: Mas Kato [mailto:tealp729@home.com]
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2001 1:21 PM
To: 'CCIELAB'
Subject: WFQ and BRIs
Many moons ago, turning off weighted fair queueing ('no fair-queue') on
BRIs was standard practice. I don't remember why. Was it a workaround
for a code-path problem or something? An archive search turned up zilch.
Anyone?
Mas
**Please read:http://www.groupstudy.com/list/posting.html
**Please read:http://www.groupstudy.com/list/posting.html
**Please read:http://www.groupstudy.com/list/posting.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 13 2002 - 10:31:23 GMT-3