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 21:26 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 60583126DED; Thu, 11 Jan 2018 13:26:19 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.61
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.61 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, 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 vVbadmp2dYnu; Thu, 11 Jan 2018 13:26:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from de-cix.net (relay4.de-cix.net [46.31.123.2]) (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 99BDF126E01; Thu, 11 Jan 2018 13:26:16 -0800 (PST)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.46,346,1511823600"; d="scan'208";a="1282383"
Received: from smtp.de-cix.net ([192.168.65.10]) by mailgw014.de-cix.net with ESMTP; 11 Jan 2018 22:26:13 +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 4F9A2B00B8; Thu, 11 Jan 2018 22:26:14 +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 22:26:14 +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 22:26:14 +0100
From: Thomas King <thomas.king@de-cix.net>
To: 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: AQHTiT1EVmpr6uxEKUG4l9q8mMNj9KNrWI6AgAPalIA=
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2018 21:26:13 +0000
Message-ID: <9775E5E9-D0BA-4655-BF00-4961D7ADC1AD@de-cix.net>
References: <8BB20DB3-61E9-4CAC-B33B-B18CA12C2591@de-cix.net> <20180109113506.GA99435@vurt.meerval.net>
In-Reply-To: <20180109113506.GA99435@vurt.meerval.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: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <8CBB66A600E7E247865E42590D20E8C9@for-the-inter.net>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/grow/vF2ZIJpjcDJH6BZFf1rNKkK6EF0>
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 21:26:19 -0000

Hi Job,

On 09.01.18, 12:35, "Job Snijders" <job@instituut.net> wrote:

    Dear Thomas,
    
    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.
    > 
    > 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?

This is in the context of single- and multi-chassis LAGs.

Best regards
Thomas

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email