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? Kind regards, Job _______________________________________________ GROW mailing list GROW@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
