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
Hi.
Any reason not to run LACP on a LAG link?
Setting up a new LAG with some gear on our MX and have setup the AE
interface and turned it up, but have not actually cut traffic over to it yet.
They were saying run in passive or no LACP, with it just
On cisco one does: channel-group x mode
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.
On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 2:00 PM, Keith
Resending with edits...doh.
On 10/17/2013 2:00 PM, Keith wrote:
Hi.
Any reason not to run LACP on a LAG link?
Setting up a new LAG with some gear on our MX and have setup the AE
interface and turned it up, but have not actually cut traffic over to it yet.
The vendor of the gear the MX is
LACP is great until you hit a box that is busy and doesn't offload this to
the line card - for busy switches and firewalls, use periodic-slow instead
of fast - I've had instances of EX and SRX that can't keep up with
periodic-fast and the LAG ends up being torn down during commits.
Bear in mind
Unless you like losing traffic or looping traffic stay away from unconditional
channeling.
There are a number of situations ranging from a failing linecard/port to a
simple
misconfig that will leave the links up but not properly functional.
Possible issues...
All traffic going down link X
Like most of the replies here, I usually run LACP where ever possible. Its
a worth it for the added assurance that things are cabled correctly and
both sides agree on port pairs.
Having said that, there are some caveats:
- On some hardware, certain features are not supported on AE interfaces,
, September 24, 2013 1:38 AM
To: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: [j-nsp] LACP/LAG Between MX and Cisco
Hi.
We have a 3750X and an MX480 connected together.
As the gig link between the two is now approaching capacity we will be turning
up a LAG between the two.
As the traffic is all coming in from
8 matches
Mail list logo