IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [GROW] Handling of LAGs in Mitigating Negative Impact of Maintenance through BGP Session Culling

"Will Hargrave" <will@harg.net> Tue, 09 January 2018 15:34 UTC

Return-Path: <will@harg.net>
X-Original-To: grow@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: grow@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0593012D86A; Tue, 9 Jan 2018 07:34:54 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7z7iZnSb7gA6; Tue, 9 Jan 2018 07:34:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail0.lonap.net (mail0.lonap.net [IPv6:2a00:eb20:100::10]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C3A9F12D868; Tue, 9 Jan 2018 07:34:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [188.246.198.166] by mail0.lonap.net with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from <will@harg.net>) id 1eYvvL-0006Kh-JL; Tue, 09 Jan 2018 15:34:47 +0000
From: Will Hargrave <will@harg.net>
To: Job Snijders <job@instituut.net>
Cc: Thomas King <thomas.king@de-cix.net>, grow@ietf.org, draft-ietf-grow-bgp-session-culling@ietf.org
Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2018 15:34:46 +0000
X-Mailer: MailMate (1.10r5443)
Message-ID: <53E19D26-D4C0-4722-8CFE-FDC5BF5C3FBC@harg.net>
In-Reply-To: <20180109113506.GA99435@vurt.meerval.net>
References: <8BB20DB3-61E9-4CAC-B33B-B18CA12C2591@de-cix.net> <20180109113506.GA99435@vurt.meerval.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_MailMate_AC6F0315-4959-447D-BB04-C602FF668F8A_="
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/grow/1seJG3h2BrFMbOi6vBVlVHwj3YQ>
Subject: Re: [GROW] Handling of LAGs in Mitigating Negative Impact of Maintenance through BGP Session Culling
X-BeenThere: grow@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Grow Working Group Mailing List <grow.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/grow>, <mailto:grow-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/grow/>
List-Post: <mailto:grow@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:grow-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow>, <mailto:grow-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2018 15:34:54 -0000

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email