Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2011 15:41:28 +0100 From: Damien Fleuriot <ml@my.gd> To: Nikos Vassiliadis <nvass@gmx.com> Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org, Pete French <petefrench@ingresso.co.uk> Subject: Re: link aggregation - bundling 2 lagg interfaces together Message-ID: <4D4C1018.8060809@my.gd> In-Reply-To: <4D4C046E.9010107@gmx.com> References: <E1PlKdH-0000hK-6J@dilbert.ticketswitch.com> <4D4BF293.9010604@my.gd> <4D4C046E.9010107@gmx.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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 :/
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4D4C1018.8060809>