From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Feb 4 14:41:33 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8887B106564A for ; Fri, 4 Feb 2011 14:41:33 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from ml@my.gd) Received: from mail-wy0-f182.google.com (mail-wy0-f182.google.com [74.125.82.182]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 264348FC0C for ; Fri, 4 Feb 2011 14:41:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: by wyf19 with SMTP id 19so2370110wyf.13 for ; Fri, 04 Feb 2011 06:41:31 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.227.133.11 with SMTP id d11mr12215827wbt.193.1296830491797; Fri, 04 Feb 2011 06:41:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from dfleuriot.technique-admin.paris.hi-media-techno.com ([83.167.62.196]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id y29sm569689wbd.4.2011.02.04.06.41.30 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Fri, 04 Feb 2011 06:41:30 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <4D4C1018.8060809@my.gd> Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2011 15:41:28 +0100 From: Damien Fleuriot User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.2.13) Gecko/20101207 Thunderbird/3.1.7 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Nikos Vassiliadis References: <4D4BF293.9010604@my.gd> <4D4C046E.9010107@gmx.com> In-Reply-To: <4D4C046E.9010107@gmx.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org, Pete French Subject: Re: link aggregation - bundling 2 lagg interfaces together X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2011 14:41:33 -0000 On 2/4/11 2:51 PM, Nikos Vassiliadis wrote: > On 2/4/2011 2:35 PM, Damien Fleuriot wrote: >> Even if I can't concatenate my 2 lagg interfaces into a failover one >> over the 2 switches, the new setup will still be an improvement. > > Did you consider using STP? Are these switches RSTP capable? > The switches are running STP in pvst mode, and the basic setup of 2 interfaces in failover mode works fine for every server. What I needed here was a bit more complex though :/ > You could create a low priority bridge acting as leaf node in the STP > domain. This will provide redundancy between different ethernet switches, > I just don't know if RSTP converges fast enough for your needs. Just be > a bit careful selecting the bridge's priority. A priority of 61440 will > be probably fine. > Since I joined my company I changed every switchport to have root guard and bpduguard. They shall not pass ;) > I am *almost* sure, that if_bridge works over if_laggs, perhaps you could > combine the two. > Your idea has merit but I'd rather the BSD box not pretend it's a layer 2 device, if that was what you were suggesting. I think I'll just settle for 2 LACP interfaces, one on switch A for the WAN link, one on switch B for the 2 internal VLANS :/