On 9/6/23 18:52, Tom Beecher wrote:

> Well, not exactly the same thing. (But it's my mistake, I was
> referring to L3 balancing, not L2 interface stuff.)

Fair enough.


> 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.

Yep, pretty much my experience too.


> 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

Never tried stateful.

Moving 802.1Q trunk from N x 10Gbps LAG's to native 100Gbps links
resolved this load balancing conundrum for us. Of course, it works well
because we spread these router<=>switch links across several 100Gbps
ports, so no single trunk is ever that busy, even for customers buying N
x 10Gbps services.

Mark.