[j-nsp] LACP/LAG

[Bill Blackford]

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 <kwoody at citywest.ca> 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.
>
> They were saying run in passive or no LACP, with it just
>
> On cisco one does: channel-group <x> mode on/active/passive and I
> did have trouble getting both sides to come up properly on the cisco, one
> side would always come up suspended until I set the ports to just on.
>
> I have done the same on the MX side, except I did not use
> aggregated-ether-options lacp
> and just left that statement out.
>
> Both sides came up on the MX and it looks ok. Am I going to get bitten in
> the ass
> at some point for not running LACP?
>
> Docs I see always configure LACP for LAGs, and mention not running it but
> never really
> why you would.
>
> Thanks,
> Keith
> ______________________________**_________________
> juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/**mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp<https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp>
>



-- 
Bill Blackford

Logged into reality and abusing my sudo privileges.....