Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2012 15:31:34 +0300 From: Nikolay Denev <ndenev@gmail.com> To: Harald Schmalzbauer <h.schmalzbauer@omnilan.de> Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org, auryn@zirakzigil.org, freebsd-stable@freebsd.org, Pete French <petefrench@ingresso.co.uk> Subject: Re: Problem with link aggregation + sshd Message-ID: <6F4AAF36-46D6-439A-8122-DD305B77CBB9@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <503DEC58.1050609@omnilan.de> References: <E1T6eiz-000FgC-TV@dilbert.ingresso.co.uk> <503DEC58.1050609@omnilan.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Aug 29, 2012, at 1:18 PM, Harald Schmalzbauer = <h.schmalzbauer@omnilan.de> wrote: > schrieb Pete French am 29.08.2012 11:38 (localtime): >>> Link aggregation can never work with two separate switches! LACP and >>> static trunking require both sides to bundle the same trunk. which = is >>> impossible for two separate switches. >> These switches had a port where you could connect them together and >> then configure each to know about the other switch, and to do LACP >> across the pair of them. Or at least thats what it looked like it >> was capable of doing, and it appeared to be doing LACP when = configured >> that way and connected to Windows machines, just not FreeBSD ones. = But I'm >=20 > What you desciribe is well known as =84stacking=93 (not to mix with = =84virtual > stacking=93) and sorry that I haven't made clear that in such a case = LACP > (also static trunking of course) works well and is a fantastic way to > gain redundancy. > When you create a physical switch stack, the individual switches are = no > separate switches anymore, but act like one big switch. > With the advantage, that in case of a failure, and a trunk configured > over two different units of the stack, the link remains active. > But like mentioned, these switches are then not considered to be > separate (=84virtual stacking=93 only combine them in management = regards, > _not_ physically, so be carefull when you look for switches with > =84stacking=93 capabilities!). > The disadvantage of the real hardware stackable switch is the price. = The > cheapest way I've found is two DGS-3120 (~700$ each plus 200$ stacking > cable). Ciscos and Junipers and the bigger HPs are all much above = afaik. >=20 > -Harry >=20 Not always. For example Extreme Networks's MLAG allows link aggregation = between two switches, that are not stacked. You just have to create a special vlan between them and = configure them for MLAG. But of course this is proprietary protocol.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?6F4AAF36-46D6-439A-8122-DD305B77CBB9>