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

[Gert Doering <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

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.

This assumes that this is a LAG of which only *some* of the ports would
be affected by a planned maintenance, right?

Like, customer has 4x 10GE, and you reboot one of the switches that 
has 2 of these, so 20 GE remain and the customer traffic could just use
these, with reduced bandwidth.


So, if my reading of the scenario is right, your proposal makes sense -
let customers decide what minimum bandwidth they need, and if the "4x 10GE"
customer says "less than 30GE is not useful for me!", cull his sessions
as well, even if he could go on.

thanks for bringing this up,

Gert Doering
        -- NetMaster
-- 
have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?

SpaceNet AG                        Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14          Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen                   HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: [phone]           USt-IdNr.: DE813185279