Re: Lossy cogent p2p experiences?

On 9/7/23 09:31, Benny Lyne Amorsen wrote:

Unfortunately that is not strict round-robin load balancing.

Oh? What is it then, if it's not spraying successive packets across member links?

I do not know about any equipment that offers actual round-robin load-balancing.

Cisco had both per-destination and per-packet. Is that not it in the networking world?

Juniper's solution will cause way too much packet reordering for TCP to handle. I am arguing that strict round-robin load balancing will function better than hash-based in a lot of real-world scenarios.

Ummh, no, it won't. If it did, it would have been widespread. But it's not. Mark.