With balance srcip, the CSS uses an algorithm that guarantees that the same source is sent to the same server.
No sticky table is being used.
Therefore, if server A is down, and source S comes in, it is sent to server B.
However, when server A comes back online, it is possible for the CSS to select source A instead of B.
With all servers up, it is however guaranteed that the CSS will select the same server for the same source.
'advanced-balance sticky-srcip' is using a sticky table and it will store the server being used for each source. Even if the servers are flapping, the same source is guaranteed to go to the same server.
The only disadvantage is that the CSS needs to maintain a sticky-table.
Thanks for getting back to me on this. So it seems to me that the preferred balance would be srcip instead of advanced-balance sticky-srcip.
Since it seems that with srcip method, the CSS is smart enough to not just blindly directs to the tied-in server (if the server happens to flap) but will redirect the source to another available server.
If so, why would anyone prefer using sticky-srcip then? A table is maintained, and the same source will always be directed to the same server, eventhough it's flapping up/down?
Topology & Design:
Two ACI fabrics
Stretching VLANs using OTV
Both fabrics are advertising BD subnets into same routing domain
Some BDs(or say VLANs) are stretched, but some are not.
Endpoints can move betwee...
VMware Trunk Port Group is supported from ACI version 2.1
VMM integration must be configured properly
ASA device package must be uploaded to APIC
ASAv version must be compatible with ACI and device package version
Topology &Design:Traffic flow within same fabric:Endpoint moves to Fabric-2Bounce Entry Times OutTraffic Black-holedSummarySolutionAppendix:
In the Previous articles of ACI Automation, we are using Postman/Newman a...