On Thursday, October 17, 2013 11:07:25 PM Bill Blackford wrote: > I recently had to form a bundle between an EX and a Palo > Alto Firewall. The PAN does *not* support LACP. > Personally, I'd rather use LACP whenever and where ever > it's supported. It too would be interested in hearing > others views on the need for it.
Agree. One of the issues with not running LACP is that assume your Ethernet links are being driven by long distance transmission that doesn't hand down actual state of the remote side, e.g., local connection between router and transmission switch is up, but actual circuit to the remote site is down, without LACP enabled, the LAG will assume all member links are up, and will load traffic on all links. Traffic will then "disappear" over the link with a failed long distance circuit because in the eyes of the LAG, the member link is up (albeit locally, not end-to-end). With LACP, the router would have known that due to non- receipt of LACP keepalives from the remote end, that member link is not available for use, and thus, won't be added to the LAG. So always recommend using LACP, if possible. Mark.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
