This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/ripe-atlas@ripe.net/
[atlas] Link aggregation for anchors?
- Previous message (by thread): [atlas] Link aggregation for anchors?
- Next message (by thread): [atlas] Link aggregation for anchors?
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Tore Anderson
tore at fud.no
Thu Jul 20 07:44:46 CEST 2017
* Gert Doering <gert at space.net> > (active/passive linux bonding would work well for us, while LACP > wouldn't due to conscious design decision to de-couple control planes > of primary/secondary switches) Active/passive fail-over à la Linux bonding would work for me too. The biggest disadvantage of that is that you waste half your available bandwidth, but that probably isn't a big deal for the Atlas Anchors. It is quite possible to create a setup that does 802.3ad if an LACP neighbour is detected, falling back on active/passive fail-over if not. That said, you do lose most of the error detection capabilities of LACP that way. Quite possibly not worth the engineering effort if it's not already implemented in whatever software you're using. I'd rather you spent that time implementing LLDP support, come to think of it. (That would be useful on the non-Anchor probes as well.) Tore
- Previous message (by thread): [atlas] Link aggregation for anchors?
- Next message (by thread): [atlas] Link aggregation for anchors?
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]