Re: Distributed Router Fabrics

[Saku Ytti <saku () ytti fi>]

On Tue, 24 Dec 2024 at 17:22, Tom Beecher <beecher () beecher cc> wrote:

> It's possible I s/chip/ in my head with a different meaning than you intended, and I am answering a different 
> question.
>
> I generally won't put all LAG members on the same ASIC, or even same linecard, for failure domain reasons. I also 
> don't really care about possible challenges with BFD there, because I just use micro-BFD on members + min-links.

Quite, it depends what is important for your case. You may want to put
all in one chip for better feature parity in terms of QoS, counters
et.al., especially if you want them to fail as one, because you're
doing it purely for capacity, not for redundancy.
And indeed without uBFD, you're going to run LACP over one interface
in one chip at most, anyhow, and with uBFD each member are going to
run their own, anyhow.

So I wonder, what benefits is OP seeing here when it comes to
pizzabox? To me pizzzabox seems identical here to chassis box with
LACP spanning only single chip.
--
  ++ytti