IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Thomas King <thomas.king@de-cix.net> Thu, 11 January 2018 21:27 UTC

Return-Path: <thomas.king@de-cix.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 9329B12DA43; Thu, 11 Jan 2018 13:27:28 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.609
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.609 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] 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 2DcKK8fXzA3y; Thu, 11 Jan 2018 13:27:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from de-cix.net (relay3.de-cix.net [46.31.123.1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F3228126DED; Thu, 11 Jan 2018 13:27:25 -0800 (PST)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.46,346,1511823600"; d="scan'208,217";a="1346903"
Received: from smtp.de-cix.net ([192.168.65.10]) by mailgw013.de-cix.net with ESMTP; 11 Jan 2018 22:27:24 +0100
Received: from MS-EXCHANGE.for-the-inter.net (MS-EXCHANGE.for-the-inter.net [192.168.49.2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.de-cix.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 33C5DB00B8; Thu, 11 Jan 2018 22:27:24 +0100 (CET)
Received: from MS-EXCHANGE.for-the-inter.net (192.168.49.2) by MS-EXCHANGE.for-the-inter.net (192.168.49.2) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1347.2; Thu, 11 Jan 2018 22:27:23 +0100
Received: from MS-EXCHANGE.for-the-inter.net ([fe80::9449:4d85:69bf:3d4c]) by MS-EXCHANGE.for-the-inter.net ([fe80::9449:4d85:69bf:3d4c%12]) with mapi id 15.00.1347.000; Thu, 11 Jan 2018 22:27:23 +0100
From: Thomas King <thomas.king@de-cix.net>
To: Will Hargrave <will@harg.net>, Job Snijders <job@instituut.net>
CC: "grow@ietf.org" <grow@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-grow-bgp-session-culling@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-grow-bgp-session-culling@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [GROW] Handling of LAGs in Mitigating Negative Impact of Maintenance through BGP Session Culling
Thread-Index: AQHTiT1EVmpr6uxEKUG4l9q8mMNj9KNrWI6AgABC9QCAA5fygA==
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2018 21:27:23 +0000
Message-ID: <42338B69-25C0-40D9-88F3-D5D7563E7AA2@de-cix.net>
References: <8BB20DB3-61E9-4CAC-B33B-B18CA12C2591@de-cix.net> <20180109113506.GA99435@vurt.meerval.net> <53E19D26-D4C0-4722-8CFE-FDC5BF5C3FBC@harg.net>
In-Reply-To: <53E19D26-D4C0-4722-8CFE-FDC5BF5C3FBC@harg.net>
Accept-Language: en-US, de-DE
Content-Language: en-GB
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [192.168.141.93]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_42338B6925C040D988F3D5D7563E7AA2decixnet_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/grow/lCWiXGydIXvj3d4GXzKyTECWy48>
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: Thu, 11 Jan 2018 21:27:29 -0000

Hi Will,

I know of many IXPs utilising Multi-Chassis LAGs.

Best regards,
Thomas

From: Will Hargrave <will@harg.net>
Date: Tuesday, 9. January 2018 at 16:34
To: Job Snijders <job@instituut.net>
Cc: Thomas King <thomas.king@de-cix.net>, "grow@ietf.org" <grow@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-grow-bgp-session-culling@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-grow-bgp-session-culling@ietf.org>
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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email