From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Dec 14 01:13:42 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 78A3716A415 for ; Thu, 14 Dec 2006 01:13:42 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from dan@dan.emsphone.com) Received: from dan.emsphone.com (dan.emsphone.com [199.67.51.101]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0ACAF43CBE for ; Thu, 14 Dec 2006 01:11:57 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from dan@dan.emsphone.com) Received: (from dan@localhost) by dan.emsphone.com (8.13.6/8.13.8) id kBE1DO8m095083; Wed, 13 Dec 2006 19:13:24 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from dan) Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2006 19:13:24 -0600 From: Dan Nelson To: "N. Harrington" Message-ID: <20061214011324.GF79418@dan.emsphone.com> References: <20061214010124.29818.qmail@web34502.mail.mud.yahoo.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20061214010124.29818.qmail@web34502.mail.mud.yahoo.com> X-OS: FreeBSD 6.2-PRERELEASE X-message-flag: Outlook Error User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: How does one bond two interfaces together to share bandwidth? X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2006 01:13:42 -0000 In the last episode (Dec 13), N. Harrington said: > I am trying to figure out how to bond or combine 2 interfaces > together. Such that they each share traffic. > > I have tried one way, however when I use it I seem to have an odd > broadcast occuring on my switch. Such that I am seeing incoming > traffic hit some other ports on the switch. Can someone confirm if I > am doing it correctly? Perhaps I have a switch issue? Do I also need > to bond the ports together on the switch? Sadly the switch they are > connected to does not support port bonding. Does that matter? I have > not seen any mention of that being required. If the remote switch doesn't support it, only outgoing traffic will be split across both ports. Incoming traffic will probably come in on the first port that came up, or the switch may decide that there's a routing loop (or other misconfiguration) because the same MAC address is seen on both ports, and disable one of the ports (or even both). Most managed switches should support it; they may call it trunking. -- Dan Nelson dnelson@allantgroup.com