[j-nsp] Storm control on aggregated ethernet interfaces...

[Gmail]

I think best practice is to keep this type of configuration at the edge ports and save yourself a bunch of headaches. You are exactly right if you enable storm control on aggregate trunk ports you open yourself up issues that could disconnect or degrade the switch from the rest of network while it is trying to protect itself from a single or group of edge ports that are exceeding their limits but you still have x amount of ports that could still be functional.  It's like your finger is infected but you are cutting off your whole arm to cure it:)

On May 7, 2012, at 8:58 PM, Mark Tees <marktees at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hello listers,
> 
> In the docs for Junos 11.4 for the EX series switches there is a line that says:
> 
> Note: We do not recommend enabling storm control for multicast traffic on aggregated Ethernet interfaces on EX2200, EX3200, EX3300, EX4200, and EX6200 switches.
> 
> Link -> http://www.juniper.net/techpubs/en_US/junos11.4/topics/concept/rate-limiting-storm-control-understanding.html
> 
> This line is not in the same doc for 10.4
> 
> Link -> http://www.juniper.net/techpubs/en_US/junos10.4/topics/concept/rate-limiting-storm-control-understanding.html
> 
> Does the same rule apply for 10.4 for the EX series (specifically 4200's and 3200's) ?
> 
> Is it a good idea to be enabling storm control on trunk interfaces internally or perhaps it might be best to keep it to edge ports?
> 
> My thought was along the lines of not enabling storm control for trunk interfaces internally so that there is no chance of STP or LACP packets getting dropped. I suppose the way the ASICs process these types of control packets might differ between software versions given these lines in the docs?
> 
> Any thoughts out there on this?
> 
> Mark L. Tees
> marktees at gmail.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp