Good Catch Marco!

I'd not seen that when I read through that page, but I just re-read it.... My read is that it can introduce ODD edge-case complications.

my synthesis of this information is  outlined here. I encourage anyone to correct my misunderstandings. 

network abstraction gets complicated QUICKLY.  Network gear vendors implement their support for the different bonding modes in subtly different ways.
Firewalls have their own quirks.

abstractions on top of abstractions on top of abstractions on top of abstractions on top of .... okay you get the point.


we want to avoid asymmetric pathing where possible, because stuff gets quirky and edge-casey quickly. the fewer explicitly supported virtual topologies, the fewer scenarios the engineering teams need to scrutinize the COMPLEX edge case behaviors of, resulting in a better experience for EVERYONE.... heres what I mean:

LACP: 
This is a pretty well known and consistently implemented aggregation mechanism. the behaviors of network interfaces and switching hardware that are involved are pretty consistent. 

This GENERALLY works fine. the only time I've seen it get a little wonky is LACP across switch chassis behavior can be odd..