Peter Memishian wrote: > > "Is there a reason I'd want to do a temporary delete instead of (say) > > forcing the link down? (And can I force the link down?)" > > > > I have several questions regarding this: > > > > - What's the real user case that needs a "link down"? > > I'm not sure; what's the reason a real user would want to temporarily > delete a link? > > > - After think it more, I don't think "link down" can solve all the > scenario > > that "temporary delete" can solve. Assume that one wants to (temporarily) > > plumb an link which is a port of an established aggregation. (Note that > one > > cannot plumb an link being aggregated). Today, one could temporarily > delete > > this aggregation, and plumb that link. But "down" the aggregation won't > work. > > Or one could just temporarily remove that link from the aggregation and > plumb it, right? But yes, it wouldn't make sense to force a given link > down in this case.
I also think that administrative "link down" isn't useful for the case described above, but it might be useful in other cases. For example, it may be a way to quiesce the link while not having to tell all upstream consumers to "go away" first (as you'd have to do when "temporarily" deleting a link). Why an administrator would want to quiesce a link? I'm not sure. Maybe Jim could provide some use cases for this. -Seb
