mailing list archives
Re: LAGing backbone links
From: Daniel Roesen <dr () cluenet de>
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2011 00:17:01 +0200
On Tue, Apr 05, 2011 at 08:05:59PM +0100, Nick Hilliard wrote:
Some older equipment will unequally prefer certain links over others,
depending on the number of members in the LAG. I.e. a 2-member LAG might
load balance equally under ideal conditions, but a 3-member LAG might
naturally load balance 2:2:1.
Even newer gear does that. TurboIron 24X for example. Some Force10
switch model(s) as well, no clue how old though.
LAGs have one big advantage over ECMP: with gear implementing
"minimum-links" feature, you can make sure your LAG bandwidth doesn't
fall below a certain capacity before being removed from IGP topology
so you can make sure redundant (full!) capacity elsewhere can automatically
With ECMP traffic engineering and capacity/redundancy planning
becomes... "interesting". Aside of all the operational problems
regarding troubleshooting (traceroutes/mtr do love such ECMP hells) and
operational consequences of having a lot of adjacencies and links.
For all those reasons, I usually prefer LAGs (with LACP) above ECMP, even
when that means "more bugs" (vendors tend to not properly test all their
features on LAGs too).
CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber: dr () cluenet de -- dr () IRCnet -- PGP: 0xA85C8AA0