> Is there anything wrong with creating an Aggr with only a single > interface in it? In essence, using Aggregations as an interface > abstraction layer? > > The idea is this: when creating a zone that may exist on one or more > systems with differing network configurations to use an aggregate with a > single device so that regardless of the actual underlying network you > can still use interface aggr1, for instance. When Crossbow integrates I > doubt this will be necessary, but in the meantime it could provide a > useful flexibility provided it doesn't cause network errors.
Project Clearview's Vanity Naming will bring this ability without forcing all of your links to be named aggrN. (Its Nemo Unification component will also allow you to create an aggregation over non-GLDv3 Ethernet links, which isn't possible today and limits the ability to use aggregations in the manner you suggest.) Further, If you don't need direct access to the link layer, it would be more flexible to use a single-interface IPMP group interface after the IPMP Rearchitecture. -- meem _______________________________________________ networking-discuss mailing list [email protected]
