From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Apr 30 20:05:59 2009 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 ED793106566B for ; Thu, 30 Apr 2009 20:05:59 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from thompsa@FreeBSD.org) Received: from pele.citylink.co.nz (pele.citylink.co.nz [202.8.44.226]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ACF2A8FC16 for ; Thu, 30 Apr 2009 20:05:59 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from thompsa@FreeBSD.org) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pele.citylink.co.nz (Postfix) with ESMTP id C4EE4FF32; Fri, 1 May 2009 07:48:30 +1200 (NZST) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at citylink.co.nz Received: from pele.citylink.co.nz ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (pele.citylink.co.nz [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id p0nMD+4RFYUW; Fri, 1 May 2009 07:48:21 +1200 (NZST) Received: from citylink.fud.org.nz (unknown [202.8.44.45]) by pele.citylink.co.nz (Postfix) with ESMTP; Fri, 1 May 2009 07:48:21 +1200 (NZST) Received: by citylink.fud.org.nz (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 0F77F11432; Fri, 1 May 2009 07:48:21 +1200 (NZST) Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2009 12:48:20 -0700 From: Andrew Thompson To: andrea@brancatelli.it Message-ID: <20090430194820.GA67455@citylink.fud.org.nz> References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01) Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: lagg LACP between two hosts 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: Thu, 30 Apr 2009 20:06:00 -0000 On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 09:14:04PM +0200, andrea@brancatelli.it wrote: > > Hello everybody, > > I have a strange curiosity maybe you can clarify me :-) > > Is it possible to do a LACP lagg connection directly between two hosts > using two gigalan and two crossed cables? Or maybe three... ;-) Yes, that will work fine. The load balancing across the link uses the mac+ip to hash so you need variation in those to split the traffic. Andrew