Hi Will, I know of many IXPs utilising Multi-Chassis LAGs.
Best regards, Thomas From: Will Hargrave <[email protected]> Date: Tuesday, 9. January 2018 at 16:34 To: Job Snijders <[email protected]> Cc: Thomas King <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [GROW] Handling of LAGs in Mitigating Negative Impact of Maintenance through BGP Session Culling 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
