On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 4:14 PM, Stefan Fouant < sfou...@shortestpathfirst.net> wrote:
> On 7/22/2011 11:24 AM, Rafael Rodriguez wrote: > >> >> Interesting, did not know that control packets were always sent on the >> lowest numbered interface in a LAG. Are you aware of any Juniper >> documentation mentioning this? I found KB10926 but this is specific to >> EX and not MX. So LAG + BFD will do nothing in determining if individual >> links in the LAG are actually 'up'. Thanks. >> > > I am not sure of any documentation but we do cover this in some of our > training materials. I will see what I can dig up. > > Regarding BFD's capabilities to determine member state of individual member > links, this is not currently supported by BFD. Take a look at IETF Draft > 'Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) for Interface' which was just > released a few weeks ago. It is designed to meet these requirements - > http://tools.ietf.org/html/**draft-chen-bfd-interface-00<http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-chen-bfd-interface-00> > > In the meantime, why not just run LACP across your LAG interface? This can > accomplish the goal quite easily. No sub-second failure detection, its 1-3 sec range. > > > Are individual links in the LAG able to detect failures with OAM? >> > > Should be able to but I would of course test it first... :) > Testing this now. Found: http://www.juniper.net/techpubs/en_US/junos11.1/topics/example/layer-2-802-1ah-ethernet-oam-lfm-example-for-aggregated-ethernet-mx-solutions.html > > Stefan Fouant > JNCIE-ER, JNCIE-M, JNCIE-SEC, JNCI > > Technical Trainer, Juniper Networks > http://www.shortestpathfirst.**net <http://www.shortestpathfirst.net> > http://www.twitter.com/sfouant > _______________________________________________ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp