Skip to content

remove remote peering and most mclag mentions#313

Open
edipascale wants to merge 1 commit into
masterfrom
ema/deprecate-mclag-remote-peering
Open

remove remote peering and most mclag mentions#313
edipascale wants to merge 1 commit into
masterfrom
ema/deprecate-mclag-remote-peering

Conversation

@edipascale

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

we are still keeping the entry in the switch profile for backward compatibility, so it will be referenced in the autogenerated content, but any mclag mention in our own docs should now be gone

Part of https://github.com/githedgehog/internal/issues/416

Copilot AI left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Pull request overview

This PR updates the documentation to remove references to remote VPC peering and to remove (or replace) most MCLAG mentions, aligning docs with the ongoing deprecation/removal effort while preserving backward-compatible autogenerated references where needed.

Changes:

  • Removes remote VPC peering documentation and examples across user guide, architecture, and install/wiring docs.
  • Removes MCLAG references (including deprecated sections) and updates examples to ESLAG where applicable.
  • Updates VLAB docs/examples to reflect current topology/log output and removes MCLAG-related styling/log lines.

Reviewed changes

Copilot reviewed 14 out of 14 changed files in this pull request and generated 4 comments.

Show a summary per file
File Description
docs/vlab/virt-externals.md Removes MCLAG-specific external-peering guidance and updates VLAB generation/log snippets accordingly.
docs/vlab/running.md Updates example hhfab vlab gen output and removes MCLAG-related diagram styling/log lines.
docs/vlab/overview.md Updates default topology description and recalculates default resource requirements after removing MCLAG leaves.
docs/vlab/demo.md Removes remote peering examples/options and adds gateway-peering/NAT options documentation.
docs/user-guide/vpcs.md Removes remote peering section and replaces MCLAG example connection naming with ESLAG.
docs/user-guide/shrink-expand.md Removes MCLAG mention from switch expansion note and fixes formatting.
docs/user-guide/dhcp.md Updates example connection name from MCLAG to ESLAG.
docs/user-guide/devices.md Removes the MCLAG deprecation warning block.
docs/user-guide/connections.md Removes deprecated MCLAG and MCLAG-domain connection documentation sections.
docs/reference/cli.md Updates CLI example connection name from MCLAG to ESLAG.
docs/known-limitations/known-limitations.md Removes known limitation entry/section that was specific to MCLAG external peering.
docs/install-upgrade/build-wiring.md Removes local/remote peering distinction and simplifies peering explanation/diagram narrative.
docs/concepts/overview.md Removes MCLAG from the list of server connection examples.
docs/architecture/fabric.md Removes remote-peering mode description and simplifies to a single route-leaking description.

💡 Add Copilot custom instructions for smarter, more guided reviews. Learn how to get started.

Comment thread docs/vlab/demo.md Outdated
Comment thread docs/vlab/running.md Outdated
Comment thread docs/vlab/running.md
Comment thread docs/user-guide/vpcs.md Outdated
we are still keeping the entry in the switch profile for
backward compatibility, so it will be referenced in the
autogenerated content, but any mclag mention in our own
docs should now be gone

Signed-off-by: Emanuele Di Pascale <emanuele@githedgehog.com>
@edipascale edipascale force-pushed the ema/deprecate-mclag-remote-peering branch from d84ec1f to 48c1663 Compare June 18, 2026 16:37
@github-actions

Copy link
Copy Markdown

🚀 Deployed on https://preview-313--hedgehog-docs.netlify.app

@edipascale edipascale marked this pull request as ready for review June 18, 2026 16:39
@edipascale edipascale requested a review from a team as a code owner June 18, 2026 16:39
@edipascale edipascale requested a review from mrbojangles3 June 18, 2026 16:39
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants