From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Aug 29 12:33:01 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B9C8106564A; Wed, 29 Aug 2012 12:33:01 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from ndenev@gmail.com) Received: from mail-wi0-f172.google.com (mail-wi0-f172.google.com [209.85.212.172]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DCC728FC20; Wed, 29 Aug 2012 12:33:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: by wicr5 with SMTP id r5so4683756wic.13 for ; Wed, 29 Aug 2012 05:32:59 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=subject:mime-version:content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to:x-mailer; bh=+N5KdQJPdBUachnjArYmyRVUm3nXLTqUbRqiqAmzkuw=; b=MnmhlV1MkSGmIXrEp/m/Oh0wxij8HFXIvYfRI1ui6Wdk5X1kEbrBhk0iiD4vs/YC/Q PBDif8eU0cIPlrTDZZeRQ3I1oEfMWfjsF6CnVQZqpLD5yih87KxqZO8kRCpnkE2S4DRp j2h4UVuiLp9dw0R9PVpx9wA7wGKRJHtowkZTwA35q2fpF0KxePp/Rn+cG7QIdI0OBzHa QzBXJkVDJRudgh/QTxX5b57N58L46Xaj2hIw1CXYM0yrCfk7PiRMmOeOz7R5QhFzKhQJ T8EfqsiZLBHP31bBKZy68nhTpNMizTOiTwfyJY98S2ielzbzv3Trh32x6on35bHp5x5H D6KA== Received: by 10.217.2.133 with SMTP id p5mr878653wes.143.1346243579421; Wed, 29 Aug 2012 05:32:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.129.32.13] (g1.moneybookers.com. [217.18.249.148]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id cl8sm10057353wib.10.2012.08.29.05.32.53 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 29 Aug 2012 05:32:55 -0700 (PDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.0 \(1486\)) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 From: Nikolay Denev In-Reply-To: <503DEC58.1050609@omnilan.de> Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2012 15:31:34 +0300 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <6F4AAF36-46D6-439A-8122-DD305B77CBB9@gmail.com> References: <503DEC58.1050609@omnilan.de> To: Harald Schmalzbauer X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1486) Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org, auryn@zirakzigil.org, freebsd-stable@freebsd.org, Pete French Subject: Re: Problem with link aggregation + sshd X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2012 12:33:01 -0000 On Aug 29, 2012, at 1:18 PM, Harald Schmalzbauer = 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.