[atlas] Link aggregation for anchors?

Hi,

On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 07:44:46AM +0200, Tore Anderson wrote:
> * 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.

Not really, given a GigE uplink and just a few mbits in use :-)

> 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.

Linux bonding can do ARP probing on both member interfaces, which does
the most important "real world" part of the error detection - "will this
port work for me to reach the default gateway?" (so you can even failover
on an uplink outage).

> 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.)

Minimalistic LLDP support would also be nice ("device, port").

Gert Doering
        -- NetMaster
-- 
have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?

SpaceNet AG                        Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14          Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen                   HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444           USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/ripe-atlas/attachments/20170720/e29b8ac4/attachment.sig>