On 9 Jan 2018, at 11:35, Job Snijders wrote:
Our suggestion for handling LAGs looks like this: Typically, a
minimum
number of port members can be defined for a LAG being up. The LAG is
not touched by BGP Session Culling during a maintenance unless this
number is undercut. If the number if undercut the LAG is handled by
BGP Session Culling as defined in the Internet Draft.
If no value for the minimum number of active port members is defined
for a LAG, the value 1 should be used as this is the behaviour of
LAGs
today already.
Is this in context of multi-chassis LAG?
I think if we include anything about LAGs we should make it very clear
that you must apply the culling ACL to *either* all ports of a LAG *or*
none. Applying it to half of an MCLAG could be disastrous.
I didn’t realise there were IXPs using MC-LAG. Discovering this maybe
surprise some members.
--
Will Hargrave
Technical Director
LONAP Ltd
+44 114 303 4444
_______________________________________________
GROW mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
