On 29/10/2016 18:26, Roger Wiklund wrote:
Hi
The question is actually regarding maintenance.
I have 40+ dual homed servers, and I need to upgrade the switches.
It's not feasible to steer traffic away on each server, therefore I
asked about what can be done on the switch itself.
In job-1
On 29 October 2016 at 08:30, wrote:
>> Question was not about outage, but operator removing link from an bundle.
>
> My understanding is that there is no difference and the same procedure is
> invoked during failure i.e. MAC_Operational=False.
It's not the same.
Hi
The question is actually regarding maintenance.
I have 40+ dual homed servers, and I need to upgrade the switches.
It's not feasible to steer traffic away on each server, therefore I
asked about what can be done on the switch itself.
I wanted to know if there is a better way than just
Hi Saku,
> From: Saku Ytti [mailto:s...@ytti.fi]
> Sent: Saturday, October 29, 2016 2:16 AM
>
> On 29 October 2016 at 02:54, wrote:
> > Saku is right there in saying that LACP should have provisions for
> > hitless addition and removal of links from bundle. (not
On 29 October 2016 at 02:54, wrote:
> Saku is right there in saying that LACP should have provisions for hitless
> addition and removal of links from bundle. (not quite sure about removal
> though, but I'll play along).
> But my experience is that's not how it works
> Of Saku Ytti
> Sent: Friday, October 28, 2016 9:20 PM
>
> On 28 October 2016 at 15:06, Eugeniu Patrascu
> wrote:
> > If you use LACP on the link, to mitigate the packets loss, set it to
> > fast and then just yank the cable from the switch. The traffic will be
> > rehashed
On 28 October 2016 at 15:06, Eugeniu Patrascu wrote:
> If you use LACP on the link, to mitigate the packets loss, set it to fast
> and then just yank the cable from the switch. The traffic will be rehashed
> on the remaining links and at most you'll lose around 1 second worth
On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 2:29 PM, Roger Wiklund
wrote:
> Thanks, have you tested this? What happens to traffic/sessions on the
> link? Is it non disruptive, or at least less disruptive than disabling
> the interface?
>
Yes, I did.
You must also disable it on the remote
Thanks, have you tested this? What happens to traffic/sessions on the
link? Is it non disruptive, or at least less disruptive than disabling
the interface?
/Roger
On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 1:17 PM, Eugeniu Patrascu wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 12:53 PM, Roger Wiklund
On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 12:53 PM, Roger Wiklund
wrote:
> Hi
>
> Is there a way to remove one interface from an AE without disabling
> the interface?
>
> I was thinking about removing the 802.3ad aeX config from the
> interface but I have not tried it yet.
>
You
Hi
Is there a way to remove one interface from an AE without disabling
the interface?
I was thinking about removing the 802.3ad aeX config from the
interface but I have not tried it yet.
Thanks
/Roger
___
juniper-nsp mailing list
11 matches
Mail list logo