Port Load sharing

[Paul11]

After i enable Lacp .. port is not sharing. Utilization is high on Link 1 only.
I want to use load balance on both links.
Please kindly see the below output and advice thanks.

* I try L2 static, L3_L4 and LACP. all the same ports are not load balance. *

enable sharing 1 grouping 1,4

enable sharing 1 grouping 1,4 L3_L4

enable sharing 1 grouping 1,4 algorithm address-based L3_L4 lacp


CoreSW # sh port 1,4 utilization bandwithPort Link Link Rx Peak Rx Tx Peak Tx
State Speed % bandwidth % bandwidth % bandwidth % bandwidth
================================================================================
Link_1> A 1000 82.06 94.94 48.23 55.72
Link_2> A 1000 0.25 0.30 1.34 1.57
================================================================================
> indicates Port Display Name truncated past 8 characters
Link State: A-Active, R-Ready, NP-Port Not Present, L-Loopback

CoreSW #sh sharing
Load Sharing Monitor
Config Current Agg Ld Share Ld Share Agg Link Link Up
Master Master Control Algorithm Group Mbr State Transitions
==============================================================================
1 1 LACP L3_L4 1 Y A 0
L3_L4 4 Y A 0
==============================================================================
Link State: A-Active, D-Disabled, R-Ready, NP-Port not present, L-Loopback
Load Sharing Algorithm: (L2) Layer 2 address based
(L3_L4) Layer 3 address and Layer 4 port based
Number of load sharing trunks: 1


Core2 # sh lacp lag 1
Lag Actor Actor Partner Partner Partner Agg Actor
Sys-Pri Key MAC Sys-Pri Key Count MAC
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 0 0x03e9 00:04:96:34:b2:e1 0 0x03e9 2 00:04:96:34:b2:e0

Port list:

Member Port Rx Sel Mux Actor Partner
Port Priority State Logic State Flags Port
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 0 Current Selected Collect-Dist A-GSCD-- 1001
4 0 Current Selected Collect-Dist A-GSCD-- 1012
================================================================================
Actor Flags: A-Activity, T-Timeout, G-Aggregation, S-Synchronization
C-Collecting, D-Distributing, F-Defaulted, E-Expired

[Paul11]

Hi Drew,

We are not able to purchase a module XGM2-2sf for the X450a. They said it's EOL. Any idea for this where to order please.

Thanks.

[Drew_C]

I can't find it at the moment, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist...

Since this is an X450a, the last supported version is 15.3.x. Paul, I would suggest first making sure you're on the most recent software for your cores. At the moment, that is EXOS v15.3.4.6-patch1-8. If there's a software bug, it will hopefully be resolved by updating. TAC will need to manage the case beyond that.

[PARTHIBAN_CHINN]

I am 100% sure there was a PD which said multicast traffic will not load share in a lag.

In 15.6 Concepts guide it is documented that this is supported

Link Aggregation AlgorithmsSummitStack supports address-based load sharing. (This platform does not support port-based load
sharing.)
The following are the types of traffic to which addressed-based algorithms apply and the traffic
components used to select egress links:
• Layer 2 frames and non-IP traffic—The source and destination MAC addresses.
• IPv4 and IPv6 packets
• L2 algorithm—Layer 2 source and destination MAC addresses. Available on SummitStack and all
Summit family switches.
• Broadcast, multicast, and unknown unicast packets (not configurable)—Depends on traffic type:
• IPv4 and IPv6 packets—The source and destination IP addresses.
• Non-IP traffic—The source and destination MAC addresses.
You can control the field examined by the switch for address-based load sharing when the load-sharing
group is created by using the following command:

[Drew_C]

This statement is misleading. Multicast can be hashed and load shared in a lag, but because much of the traffic is the same source and destination, a single stream can "stick" to one link. Different streams should hash to different links, unless some aspect of the traffic puts them together due to hashing.

[rbrt]

To add to Drews comment: LACPs main use case is to add/improve redundancy. That it does some kind of load sharing is a nice benefit, not more. If real load balancing is necessary some kind of L3 routing protocol, for example OSPF, would be a solution. Some routing protocols (if not all; I am no routing expert) offer "equal path load balancing" which actually looks at the link usage and actively distributes the load.