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

["Will Hargrave" <[e-mail]>]

Hello,

We can always think of enhancements and this is part of the natural 
process of documenting best practice. At some point (some time ago) a 
consensus was reached, and we moved forward to publication. Without such 
a watershed no work can actually ever be completed.

We don’t have a concept of ‘minimum links’; when the member buys 
the ports they expect them all to work :) Selecting such a figure 
implies an understanding of their network that I don’t possess without 
further technical communication. This technique is designed to help with 
those communication difficulties not increase their complexity.

Will


On 16 Jan 2018, at 14:28, Thomas King wrote:

> Hi Job,
>
> to be clear, my suggestion covers MC-LAGs and more importantly LAGs. 
> Both is missing in the current document. I think the working group 
> should decide if the current document is good to go or whether it is 
> missing important parts and should be revised.
>
> If we as a working group decide to move ahead and add the proposed 
> changes on an update of the BCP I will definitely contribute.
>
> Best regards,
> Thomas
>
>
> On 15.01.18, 19:34, "Job Snijders" <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>     On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 06:11:26PM +0000, Thomas King wrote:
>     > any update on this?
>
>     Hi Thomas,
>
>     I hope you realize that pulling the culling document out of the 
> RFC
>     editor queue, and going again through GROW, IETF and IESG review, 
> is a
>     very significant amount of work you'd be dumping in our laps. I'm 
> not
>     sure I'd agree to that. :-)
>
>     In my January 9th message 
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/grow/1H30kxE7e1QN_5bRi3EfOoX9d-U
>     I mentioned that perhaps a next revision of the BCP can include 
> text
>     specific to Multi-Chassis LAGs. You are free to propose text for 
> the
>     next revision, you have not done so yet. I recommend that any 
> proposed
>     text is based on actual operational experience with the 
> combination of
>     'culling' and 'MC LAG'.
>
>     I indicated that your organisation appears to be in the early 
> stages of
>     applying the 'culling' mechanism. I recommend you to carefully 
> take
>     notes on the interaction between LAG and culling, and whatever 
> arises as
>     the best practise, can maybe be documented in the next revision of 
> the BCP.
>
>     Kind regards,
>
>     Job