Hi Job,
On 09.01.18, 12:35, "Job Snijders" <[email protected]> wrote:
Dear Thomas,
On Tue, Jan 09, 2018 at 11:30:35AM +0000, Thomas King wrote:
> we at DE-CIX are currently implementing BGP Session Culling and we hit
> the question how to handle LAGs (e.g. LACP, Static configured). The
> Internet Draft is not covering this question yet, however, from our
> point of view it is worth discussing it.
>
> 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?
This is in the context of single- and multi-chassis LAGs.
Best regards
Thomas
_______________________________________________
GROW mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
