> > So I wonder, what benefits is OP seeing here when it comes to > pizzabox? To me pizzzabox seems identical here to chassis box with > LACP spanning only single chip.
Yeah that's a good question. On Tue, Dec 24, 2024 at 10:28 AM Saku Ytti <s...@ytti.fi> wrote: > On Tue, 24 Dec 2024 at 17:22, Tom Beecher <beec...@beecher.cc> wrote: > > > It's possible I s/chip/ in my head with a different meaning than you > intended, and I am answering a different question. > > > > I generally won't put all LAG members on the same ASIC, or even same > linecard, for failure domain reasons. I also don't really care about > possible challenges with BFD there, because I just use micro-BFD on members > + min-links. > > Quite, it depends what is important for your case. You may want to put > all in one chip for better feature parity in terms of QoS, counters > et.al., especially if you want them to fail as one, because you're > doing it purely for capacity, not for redundancy. > And indeed without uBFD, you're going to run LACP over one interface > in one chip at most, anyhow, and with uBFD each member are going to > run their own, anyhow. > > So I wonder, what benefits is OP seeing here when it comes to > pizzabox? To me pizzzabox seems identical here to chassis box with > LACP spanning only single chip. > -- > ++ytti >
