LACP is great until you hit a box that is busy and doesn't offload this to the line card - for busy switches and firewalls, use periodic-slow instead of fast - I've had instances of EX and SRX that can't keep up with periodic-fast and the LAG ends up being torn down during commits.
Bear in mind that this is only on busy boxes and we deploy LACP wherever possible... Just my $0.02 On 18 October 2013 10:34, Chris Kawchuk <[email protected]> wrote: > I sometimes use LACP as well as a "poor man's BFD"; in the case of "the > lights are on, but nobody's home" syndrome. > > aka a situation where the physical link(s) may be up, but the control > plane functions are dead at the far end. Without LACP control packets, you > may inadvertently start trying to send traffic down a link where the other > end isn't actually functional yet. That's a definite case, albeit for a > single-link LACP. > > If you can turn it on, and both sides support it, then I suggest using it; > I haven't seen any harm IMHO. > > - CK. > > > On 18/10/2013, at 8:00 AM, Keith <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Both sides came up on the MX and it looks ok. Am I going to get bitten > in the ass > > at some point for not running LACP? > > > _______________________________________________ > juniper-nsp mailing list [email protected] > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp > -- Graham Brown Twitter - @mountainrescuer <https://twitter.com/#!/mountainrescuer> LinkedIn <http://www.linkedin.com/in/grahamcbrown> _______________________________________________ juniper-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
