Community Talk

 View Only


This community is currently under full moderation, meaning  all posts will be reviewed before appearing in the community. Please expect a brief delay—there is no need to post multiple times. If your post is rejected, you'll receive an email outlining the reason(s). We've implemented full moderation to control spam. Thank you for your patience and participation.

  • 1.  Incorrect web documentation? LACP not required for LAG

    Posted 06-03-2015 22:03


    I read something earlier that tripped me up, wondering how I could be wrong. It says here:



    "You must enable LACP when you configure a LAG."


    That what was caught my eye and I read a bit more and it seems to quite definitively state that you just can not have a working LAG without LACP.


    "When LACP is not enabled, a local LAG might attempt to transmit packets to a remote single interface, which causes the communication to fail. When LACP is enabled, a local LAG cannot transmit packets unless a LAG with LACP is also configured on the remote end of the link."


    That got my hopes up. It doesn't work any other way! I thought to myself that I must have been expressly enabling a service that would be up and on and running anyway. You see, I have a couple LAGs that aren't running LACP and it's irked me but it's just-production-enough gear to leave it alone if it's working. So I double checked it and no dice. I've got 121589960198211 packets, zero errors, and a LAG that drops to zero if it loses a link, as no, there's no lacp subsystem running.


    So I think the docs are wrong. Or I read it wrong possibly because that page read a bit SRX-ish as it listed a few models at one point, but if so I think it could be a bit more clear about the "suicide mode" LAG I'm running, in production, without LACP. No sane or right minded person would choose it, I agree, but still.


    I'm also posting this here in hopes that the person who configured this sees this, and he stops by here often and I can think of no more perfect thank you note.





  • 2.  RE: Incorrect web documentation? LACP not required for LAG

    Posted 06-04-2015 10:12

    Hi Tom,


    Thanks for letting Juniper know about the confusion in these docs. Our Information Experience team is investigating and will get back to you.


    Best regards,

    Sarah Lesway-Ball

  • 3.  RE: Incorrect web documentation? LACP not required for LAG
    Best Answer

    Posted 06-09-2015 18:26

    Hi Tom,


    Our team has identified that this was an error in our documentation, and they are working to resolve it. As soon as we have the updated material, we will notify you.


    Thank you for catching this! We appreciate it.




  • 4.  RE: Incorrect web documentation? LACP not required for LAG

    Posted 06-26-2015 13:51

    Hi again Tom,


    The material is now updated for all active releases: