Forgot to add, this is the best LAG/LACP troubleshooting page on the Internet ever, or at least it was back in 2014.
https://networkingbodges.blogspot.com/2012/12/all-sorts-of-things-about-lacp-and-lags.html On Fri, 10 Nov 2023 at 16:37, Mark Smith <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Fri, 10 Nov 2023 at 15:14, Tony Miles <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Generically I would suggest that trying to run LACP over a carrier link >> is not the best idea. LACP is intended as link aggregation for the two >> devices that are directly connected together and so LACP packets are >> usually interpreted as "local" only. Most gear will give you the option to >> tunnel L2 control packets, but only on a P2P type service. Optus might work >> depending on product and configuration, I suspect nbn will never work. >> > > Agree. More broadly it can end in tears if customers rely on and are > allowed to rely on undocumented service feature capabilities, because once > you allow a customer to try it and use an undocumented service capability, > and it works, and then they rely on it, and it can be hard or impossible to > take it away if you need to. > > (It's a long story, however in the distant past I've had to work on taking > away customers' ability to run STP over their VPLSes, if they happened to > be, because we needed to use it internally to prevent forwarding loops > while LACP was negotiating on a specific vendor's equipment that had > followed the IEEE's specs to the letter (after that experience, you realise > most vendors aren't entirely implementing LAG/LACP fully IEEE compliantly). > > Running STP/RSTP wasn't a supported service capability. It would work on a > VPLS that was only using our access circuits, however if the customer's > VPLS had at least one 3rd party access circuit, then we knew they weren't > running STP. > > The lesson of the story is don't allow customers to actively "suck it and > see" for unsupported service capabilities. The technical product spec > provided to customers should be the only things that work, so you > definitely know what customers are and are not running over your service.) > > Regards, > Mark. > > > > > > > > > > >> >> What are you trying to achieve and are there other options you should >> consider instead ? >> >> On Thu, 9 Nov 2023, 22:00 Max Soukhomlinov, <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> Hi All, would anyone know if Optus’ SD Ethernet (and NBN EE as a layer2) >>> supports Layer 2 Control Protocol Transparency, specifically LACP? >>> >>> >>> >>> We’ve been trying to get an answer from the Optus account manager for >>> some time now without much success. >>> >>> >>> >>> Cheers, >>> >>> Max >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> [image: Intellect IT animated logo] *Max Soukhomlinov* | Director >>> 1300 799 165, 201 | +61 411 596 249 <+61%20411%20596%20249> | >>> [email protected] >>> Suite 214, Level 2, 343 Little Collins St, Melbourne 3000 >>> www.intellectit.com.au >>> Celebrating 20 Years of supporting Australian business. >>> Disclaimer: This message may contain information which is confidential >>> or privileged. If you are not the named addressee of this email, you must >>> not disclose, disseminate or copy this email (and any attachments). The >>> integrity and security of this email cannot be guaranteed as it may have >>> been corrupted, intercepted or altered in transmission, or contain viruses. >>> Liability is not accepted for loss or damage caused by any virus, errors or >>> omissions arising from transmission by the Internet. If this email has been >>> sent to you in error, please notify the sender by reply email and destroy >>> the original >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> AusNOG mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> AusNOG mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog >> >
_______________________________________________ AusNOG mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
