Link aggregation and DNS

Brand new Xserve intel
link aggregation turn on two network cards works great.
DNS is running but when testing i dont' resolve his own adres
Link aggregation off DNS works
What goes wrong ?
thanks

You mean if the DNS server is running on the same machine you can no longer use it if bonding the interfaces?
I only know I saw a problem when I used 127.0.0.1 as the nameserver address in Network settings on the bonded interface. Users that always get the same "macaddress locked" static IP from the DHCP server, running in the same machine, got that as the nameserver IP (from the machine's Network setting) instead of from the ones in DHCP config.
(The DHCP server config also needed to be altered to serve on the bond0 interface).
And I think the info in /etc/named.conf "to only use 127.0.0.1" is, you should only allow for alterations of DNS server settings from that IP and maybe not that you should use it as the IP in Network settings.

Similar Messages

Link Aggregate and DNS

I have set up my Xserve with a Link aggregate to provide more bandwidth for my software updates. Part of the Link Aggregation is assigning each NIC with a self-assigned IP address. This server is also bound to an Windows 2003 Active Directory domain. My problem is that this self-assigned IP address is somehow getting published to our (Windows) DNS servers. Needless to say this causes a lot of resolution errors.
Is there a way to prevent this on the Xserve side, or is it a setting on the DNS server that needs to be changed?

As background, each test I did with Ling Aggregation set a self-assigned IP address on the NICs. The Configure field is set to DHCP on the NICs, while the bonded interface has a manually set IP. What can I set that field to without deactivating the NIC?
UPDATE:
OK, I never tried setting the NICs' Configure setting to OFF. I just did that on another machine and noticed that the bonded interface still worked.
Thanks
Message was edited by: Sean Mcgarrahan

Link Aggregation and OS X Server

Hello.
I'm moving my servers (3 x Intel Xserves running 10.5.6) to a new location with all new network hardware (wiring, switches, routers, etc.) and I'm now considering using link aggregation on the Xserves (the previous switches didn't support it while the new ones do) — but, since I'm working with servers which are already set up I'm concerned I might "break" services by moving to link aggregation. I've concerned that services which are bound to a specific network connection/port will fail when setting up link aggregation (for example, an Open Directory setup as OD Master).
Does anyone have any experience with this? I've read that with OD you have to revert back to an Standalone setup before setting up link aggregation, but I've only seen this mentioned once on other forums (and have never seen it confirmed anywhere).
Anyway, if anyone has any experience/advice/etc. it'd be much appreciated!
Regards,
Kristin.

To add to that question, do I just have to set the link aggregation in the Network interfaces preferences of the X-Serves or do we also have to set the Switches (through their administration interfaces) to be prepared for link-aggregation?

Using Link Aggregation and VLAN tagging with LDOMs

Hi,
Anyone know if Link aggregation combined with VLAN tagging works for LDOMs?
Any links or references would be appreciated.....
It would be very handy if each LDOM could have multiple interfaces on different VLANs....
Regards,
Daniel

I agree with bzptlx. While you can have vswitch plumbed without net-dev, and then route traffic inside the control domain, so that you can utilize aggregation, it adds complexity, and in some environments it's just impossible.
I would say that this is number 1 deficiency with LDOM's in general.

Etherchannel and link aggregation

Hi!
I'm a bit confused now, Sun Trunking supports Cisco Etherchannel, but link aggregation doesn't (if I understand correctly, a with the results of my quick tests).
Sun Trunking seems to be supporting a certain set of drivers and link aggregation another set.
Right now I've got a T2000 with 4 X e1000g and 4 X nxge, does anyone knows, if I can use these interfaces with Cisco Etherchannel, or do I absolutely need to use LACP with link aggregation??? The problem is that the network guys don't want us to use LACP (for whatever reason they have)...
Thank you very much.
Martin

I don't know any cisco term referring to "pure" etherchannel, so I don't know how to answer that. Both LACP and PAgP are link management protocols that cisco can use. I'm supposing that you're asking if the cards will work with PAgP management, but I'm not sure.
This FAQ:
http://www.sun.com/products/networking/ethernet/suntrunking/faq.xml
suggests that I've been incorrect about 802.3ad being a "new" thing and that SunTrunking 1.3 also uses it.
The SunTrunking 1.3 docs here:
http://docs.sun.com/source/817-3374-11/index.html
in chapter 1 (Overview) list six cards. I don't think yours are any of them, so SunTrunking is out.
Because LACP "only" manages the link configuration rather than driving the data, it seems to me that both the link-aggregation and cisco sides could work without LACP being present, but the management of the links might be wonky.
So without LACP, the links have to be configured manually, but I don't yet see anything that states that the two sides will not communicate if that is done.
Further, the 'dladm' man page says that one valid lacp mode on the Solaris is "off", so it must have some functionality without LACP. I would imagine that will required some sort of manual link configuration on the cisco side. (The solaris side is not going to do PAgP).
See also:
http://www.kabewm.com/2007/02/22/solaris-10-lacp-trunking-w-cisco-6509/
When the www.opensolaris.org boards come back up, I would recommend posting this question in the "networking" discussion group.
Darren

Best Switch to use for Link Aggregation

Looking to buy a new switch and was hoping that someone is already doing link aggregation on a current switch. Looking for 48 ports, I have a lot of Xserves.
What model have you had the best luck with? THX

Switches are like so many other things in life - you get what you pay for.
Sometimes you can pay less and get enough (i.e. it works well enough)
Sometimes you can pay less and not know what you're missing (you don't know what some of those advanced features are anyway, even though they could be useful)
Sometimes you pay more and get features you don't need/want/understand
Sometimes you find just the right option.
Start off by determining the importance to your business. If the switch blows out and all your servers go dark, how much will that cost you if it takes an hour to get it back up? 4 hours? a minute?
Look also at how much traffic you're pushing through your network. If you just need ports but aren't pushing many packets then a cheaper switch may suffice, but if you need every port to run at full line rate with no packet drops then you need something bigger.
Do you need the switch to just pass traffic, or do you want statistics (e.g. SNMP, RMON, etc.) so you can track which ports are busiest?
Then, of course, there's a budget. It could be $100. It could be $10,000. Your options are limited at $100, but $10K will cover a lot of options.
While you're doing this, consider expansion room. Are you likely to need more ports soon? Are 48 ports enough? Maybe a chassis-based switch that's expandable would be a better option.
At the high end you might consider anything from Cisco. Their Catalyst range of switches are the workhorses of many networks. They also come with a matching price tag.
Other options worth considering at the higher end would be Force 10's. Force 10 is known for their 10-gigabit network equipment, but their S Series switches are a powerful play.
Then there's Juniper's EX range. Juniper are known more for their routing platform (I guarantee most of your internet traffic goes through a Juniper router at some point), but their switches are a natural progression.
Coming down the line a little, look at Brocade's FastIron switches. Formerly Foundry Networks (before they got bought out), I" ve used (and continue to use) their switches in my network. If all those are above your price bracket then HP ProCurve switches are worth a look.
All of the above still may do more than you need, though. If all you really, really want is link aggregation and don't care about the rest then I'd probably go for a NetGear over the other lower-end players such as D-Link or LinkSys (even though LinkSys is now owned by Cisco).

Link Aggregation, 10.4.8 Server, D-Link problems.

I am having problems with Link Aggregation on a Mac Pro running 10.4.8 OS X Server. I'm connecting to a D-Link DGS-3224TGR. The Switch has the LACP active on both ports of the trunk and the Ports are grouped, enabled and LACP. When both en0 & en1 are connected they show green in the network status but I have no real connectivity beyond the switch. I can connect to the web-GUI of the switch only. (Before you point fingers at the switch) I can unplug en1 and all begins to work well but if I reconnect en1 I get green lights on both, but still no connectivity beyond switch. If I unplug en0 and leave en1 in it still will not work. As long as only en0 is connected to port 1 OR port 2 of the trunk it works. Once en1 is plugged in or en1 alone, it does not work.
BTW i am setting a static ip for bond0.
One other note as I test en1 solo to the switch. There was a previous post concerning Link Aggregation and the person found no real fix but mentioned ports on the Mac going to 6.5.6.0 as the ip. He seemed to believe the problem was in the switch but I was setting up en1 with the servers ip and en0 shows this 6.5.6.0 address, hmm.
Anyone with info on any special settings needed on the d-link switch or any settings for other switchs related to this please post. I realy believe the problem to be OS X related but ...

Someone made a post that made me look at the netstat. It was suggested that that not only do the IP's on en0 & en1 need to be the same but also the MAC addresses. On my Mac Pro en0 & en1 retain different MAC address. Here's the read out.
<pre>osxserver:~ root# netstat -i
Name Mtu Network Address Ipkts Ierrs Opkts Oerrs Coll
lo0 16384 <Link#1> 301253 0 301252 0 0
lo0 16384 localhost ::1 301253 - 301252 - -
lo0 16384 localhost fe80::1 301253 - 301252 - -
lo0 16384 127 localhost 301253 - 301252 - -
gif0* 1280 <Link#2> 0 0 0 0 0
stf0* 1280 <Link#3> 0 0 0 0 0
en0 1500 <Link#4> 00:17:f2:00:10:12 3117722 0 3747823 0 0
en1 1500 <Link#5> 00:17:f2:00:10:13 0 0 0 0 0
fw0* 494 <Link#6> 00:16:cb:ff:fe:6b:7b:5a 0 0 0 0 0
bond0 1500 <Link#7> 00:17:f2:00:10:12 3107388 0 3709075 0 0
bond0 1500 osxserver.l fe80::217:f2ff:fe 3107388 - 3709075 - -
bond0 1500 192.168.1 osxserver.qchro 3107388 - 3709075 - -
osxserver:~ root# netstat -r
Routing tables
Internet:
Destination Gateway Flags Refs Use Netif Expire
default routerlan.qchron.n UGSc 45 11340 bond0
127 localhost UCS 0 0 lo0
localhost localhost UH 32 296823 lo0
169.254 link#7 UCS 0 0 bond0
192.168.1 link#7 UCS 17 0 bond0
ns2.mycompany.com 0.50.e4.9e.ef.29 UHLW 0 2977 bond0 1034
osxserver.mycompany.c localhost UHS 1 1776 lo0
rays.mycompany.com 0.3.93.a4.c2.e6 UHLW 1 7541 bond0 762
markw.mycompany.com 0.7.e9.db.eb.62 UHLW 0 7314 bond0 723
edit120.mycompany.com 0.d.93.62.c5.18 UHLW 2 25439 bond0 994
edit121.mycompany.com 0.14.51.0.92.36 UHLW 1 55664 bond0 304
edit122.mycompany.com 0.d.93.62.5e.f8 UHLW 5 19449 bond0 1044
edit123.mycompany.com 0.30.65.b8.5a.14 UHLW 1 164064 bond0 1200
edit125.mycompany.com 0.d.93.64.a2.c2 UHLW 3 8418 bond0 4
edit126.mycompany.com 0.11.24.7e.a2.9c UHLW 4 16093 bond0 1124
edit127.mycompany.com 0.d.93.61.6.38 UHLW 6 238746 bond0 854
art135.mycompany.com 0.a.95.be.2f.88 UHLW 3 382196 bond0 730
art136.mycompany.com 0.a.95.ae.96.10 UHLW 4 139562 bond0 672
art137.mycompany.com 0.a.95.ae.94.a UHLW 3 328845 bond0 866
art138.mycompany.com 0.a.95.ba.f4.4a UHLW 0 30 bond0 624
mikespowerbook.qch 0.3.93.a4.7a.1c UHLW 2 5320 bond0 506
192.168.1.223 0.a.95.bb.c.78 UHLW 0 142 bond0 546
routerlan.mycompany.c 0.d.bd.a1.89.98 UHLW 46 605 bond0 928
Internet6:
Destination Gateway Flags Netif Expire
localhost localhost UH lo0
localhost Uc lo0
localhost link#1 UHL lo0
link#7 UC bond0
osxserver.local 0.17.f2.0.10.12 UHL lo0
ff01:: localhost U lo0
ff02::%lo0 localhost UC lo0
ff02::%bond0 link#7 UC bond0
</pre>

Link Aggregation: LGS318P Switch and LRT214 Router

The manual for my LGS318P is a little confusing (perhaps because I'm relatively new at more advanced features of networking).
I have an LRT214 router that I'm now routing all traffic through my LGS318P in the basement. From there it goes to multiple locations in the house, WAP's, etc. Currently, port 17 of the LGS318P connects to LAN1 of my LRT214 router. LAN2-4 are unused.
I would like to create a link aggregation for ports 17 and 18 to LAN1 and LAN2 of my router for both redundancy as well as possible speed improvement.
What is the best way to do this? Do I simply edit LAG1, place GE17 and GE18 as LAG port members, and select LACP to enable? Will that automatically set things up?
I don't want to do this then lose connectivity to my switch to reverse things.
Also, how many ports can be aggregated? Can I use 4 ports on the switch to the 4 LAN ports on the router?
What about the flow control option? Should that be disabled (default setting), enabled, or auto?
Thanks for all the help anyone can provide!

I also found something from the Linksys website for your consumption. I provides additional information about the rules of setting up LAC. The link is located at:
http://kb.linksys.com/Linksys/ukp.aspx?vw=1&docid=986c6706bc7649b686850c5a26855a8f_15746.xml&pid=80&...
I hope it helps.

Link aggregated between NAS and a switch: the Mac as a very slow access...

Hello,
in my Office we're working with Macs and PCs and all the data is on a NAS.
Here is our configuration:
NAS <-link1->Switch<-Link2->Macs or PC.
Macs are connected with AFP protocol (because SMB is very slow).
We want to use Link Aggregation between the NAS and the switch (with 802.3ad procotol) but when we do that all the Macs have a very slow access to the NAS. But all is OK with the PCs.
What can we do? Is there a problem with macOS X and link aggregation?
Thank you for your help.
Nicolas

Sorry, not sure what the question is exactly.
You must have an Xserve, or Ethernet cards capable of Jumbo Frames for one, I assume the Switch & NAS are capable?
Possible clues...
http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?path=ServerAdmin/10.4/en/c3ha3.html
http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?threadID=1715388&tstart=0
http://www.macnn.com/articles/04/06/21/link.aggregation.for.macs/
http://www.smallnetbuilder.com/content/view/30556/53/
http://www.afp548.com/forum/viewtopic.php?showtopic=8309

HP 1910-24g and link aggregation

Hi!
I need to know if two this switches are capable of link aggregation.
I have an esxi server, and i want to configure it for fault tollerance and load balance with nic teaming, connect one nic to every switch, so that if a switch fail the server continue working without interruption.
It's possible to do it or the switches support only link aggregation between ports of the same switch?
Thanks!!

Masterx81,
This is the consumer products forum.
You want the HP Enterprise Business Community for server questions.
I am guessing this is the specific area you require for esxi vmware.
Also here... HP1910 Port Aggregation over 2 or more switches?

X Serve and link aggregation - how to get more speed

Based on the thread http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?threadID=1583184
is there any news with Snow Leopard Server and bonding 2 or 4 nics on an XServe to get a true load balancing? Can you recommend specific ethernet switches?
Thanks
Kostas

Why do you think Snow Leopard makes any difference?
Link Aggregation is an IEEE standard. Apple can't arbitrarily change their implementation of it.
As for switches, I've used it successfully on a variety of HP, Cisco and Foundry switches, although since it's a standard protocol almost any switch should work.

SRW224G4 and 2960 Link Aggregation LACP problem

Hello
WE have Linksys SRW224G4 and Cisco 2960 switches.
We made link aggregation onboth two ports between them, all is working except that when I make continuous ping between them it fails every 90 seconds one ping. I saw the problem is , when I connect to SRW224G4 by telnet and go CTRL+Z and lcli , and login, I got console. Every 90 seconds I got this messages:
01-Jan-2000 22:14:49 %TRUNK-W-PORTREMOVED: Port g2 removed from ch1
01-Jan-2000 22:14:53 %TRUNK-W-PORTREMOVED: Port g1 removed from ch1
01-Jan-2000 22:14:53 %LINK-W-Down: ch1
01-Jan-2000 22:14:53 %TRUNK-I-PORTADDED: Port g1 added to ch1
01-Jan-2000 22:14:53 %LINK-I-Up: ch1
01-Jan-2000 22:14:56 %TRUNK-I-PORTADDED: Port g2 added to ch1
So after this one ping fails, and it goes good next 90 seconds, and then again same group of same messages and one ping fails.
I tried all options to change on Linksys and nothing, still i got this link down and up and one ping failed.
Did someone had same problem, can you help me somehow.
THank you
Hrvoje Pastar

Hello
WE have Linksys SRW224G4 and Cisco 2960 switches.
We made link aggregation onboth two ports between them, all is working except that when I make continuous ping between them it fails every 90 seconds one ping. I saw the problem is , when I connect to SRW224G4 by telnet and go CTRL+Z and lcli , and login, I got console. Every 90 seconds I got this messages:
01-Jan-2000 22:14:49 %TRUNK-W-PORTREMOVED: Port g2 removed from ch1
01-Jan-2000 22:14:53 %TRUNK-W-PORTREMOVED: Port g1 removed from ch1
01-Jan-2000 22:14:53 %LINK-W-Down: ch1
01-Jan-2000 22:14:53 %TRUNK-I-PORTADDED: Port g1 added to ch1
01-Jan-2000 22:14:53 %LINK-I-Up: ch1
01-Jan-2000 22:14:56 %TRUNK-I-PORTADDED: Port g2 added to ch1
So after this one ping fails, and it goes good next 90 seconds, and then again same group of same messages and one ping fails.
I tried all options to change on Linksys and nothing, still i got this link down and up and one ping failed.
Did someone had same problem, can you help me somehow.
THank you
Hrvoje Pastar

Assistance needed with SG300-10 and QNAP TS-459 Pro II Link Aggregation

All,
As the subject specifies, I have a pair of devices on a local network that I would like to play nicely together.
My problem:
If the TS-459 is configured for standalone (No Link Aggregation), then I can access the NAS via Ping, web interface, NFS, etc.. however, If I try enabling Link Aggregation, then I lose TCP/IP connectivity to it and must use QNAP's Finder utility to change Link Aggregation mode back to Standalone.
What I'm asking is - has anyone here configured a QNAP NAS appliance with Link Aggregation enabled with an SG300 or similar?? If so, could you kindly provide a walk-through on the appropriate settings for each?
My first attempts on the NAS side were to choose the "Balance-alb" (automatic load balance) and "Balance-tlb" (adaptive transmit load balance) - The QNAP_Turbo_NAS_User_manual_V3.4_ENG.pdf states that these two modes are for "General Switches", so I assumed they should work.. unfortunately, no luck for me..
Next up, I tried the IEEE 802.3ad / Link Aggregation setting on the NAS, while the device was rebooting, I configured the two GB ports on the SG300 to be a LAG with LACP enabled. Unfortunately, this too did not work as I had hoped.
I called QNAP support and of course they don't have an Sg300-10 to test with, but will test their TS-459 Pro II to confirm the Link Aggregation settings function as advertised. I hope to hear back from them later this evening. In the meantime, if anyone here has insight, it would be very much appreciated. The NAS and SG300 are for a home lab consisting of a pair of Dual-six core systems with 48GB of mem each for vSphere.
NAS Details:
Model: QNAP TS-459 Pro II
Firmware: 3.4.4 (0718T)
Drives: Seagate 2TB x4
Switch Details:
Model: Cisco SG300-10
Firmware version active image: 1.1.0.73
Thank you,
Burke

Hi Burke,
You can use link-aggregation 802.3AD with the sg-300. Try to make the trunk in the sg-300 with LACP enabled (before you make the trunk, otherwise LACP is disabled and you will only be able to do so by deleting the trunk and add it again). Flow control is enabled in the sg-300 (altough i'm not sure if this is needed). I've got the sg-300 and the QNAP TS 439 pro II+.

Fedora and SRW2024 link aggregation

Usually I am reluctant to criticize products, but this time I decided to get it out of my chest.
For people considering purchase of Linksys SRW2024 I would rather suggest to think twice before making this step.
Let’s cut to the chase... Recently I have built iSCSI storage with 2x 1Gbit NIC (Inter 1000PT) for my ESX server and the only missing ingredient was a dissent gigabit switch. Eventually I got SRW2024 as according to Linksys specs it supports VLANs and Link Aggregation etc. After configuring Fedora distro for link bonding I was unable to ping any of the hosts on the network (172.16.192.0/24). I checked the status of individual NICs and a configuration on the switch million of times, but I couldn’t find anything that was out of ordinary. In order to eliminate issues with NIC bonding on Fedora system I used my old DES3226 Layer 2 switch... and guess what? It worked just fine.
Next obvious step was to upgrade firmware from 1.2.1 to 1.2.2 (hardware version 1.2), but yet again... NO LUCK.
My question to Linksys Support or anyone who come across the same issue is – Are you aware of the issue and if so please did you find the solution as I have found number of users having similar problems!

Hi, the topic is quite old, but I am facing the same problem. We have three SRW2024 Switches. The LACP between the Switches is working, but I want to use the 802.3ad (EtherNet Link Aggregation) with two Xserves, but can´t get it working. The Linksys-Support is unable to help, because they ignore Apple-Products and name it an Apple-problem. Witch Firmware do You use on Your SRW2024? Many thanks in advance Regards svenc
Message Edited by svenc on 03-14-2008 01:16 AM

Dual wireless/ Load Balancing/ Link Aggregation

Hi all,
I've been reading up on this topic all day, with multiple Google and Apple searches, but haven't found the exact answer to this query. There was another post on this forum http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?threadID=1660762 which was vaguely similar.
Basically I'm looking to experiment with combining 2 wireless connections, and therefore 2 seperate internet connections into one Mac.
I have seen suggestions of using a couple of wireless -> ethernet bridges, since Leopard supports Link Aggregation of ethernet devices. But the first question I have is: since I use a 3rd party wireless adaptor (Netgear wg111v3 USB dongle), it already shows up in Network Preferences as an Ethernet port. Leopard treats it as an actual ethernet device, hence is oblivious to the fact it is a wireless adaptor. Since Leopard thinks it's an ethernet port, could I use a second wireless dongle and then use Link Aggregation on them both?
Additionally, if that idea were to work, would it then be possible to connect each wireless adaptor to a seperate wireless network, or would they both have to connect to the same access point?
My DSL connection is roughly 512k on a good day, but I find this bandwidth to be choked when someone else at home is streaming videos etc. So in principle my idea was to have one connection using the regular DSL line as usual, plus connect the secondary wireless to my friend's wireless over the road when needed (and yes he's already agreed to my use since he rarely accesses the net). Therefore, giving a total theoretical bandwidth of 512k x2.
Since I aim for a load-balancing idea (spreading traffic over both connections), the main issue I can forsee is that this Mac will have problems routing traffic with both IPs since I read somewhere else that DNS problems might occur.It seems relatively easy to use Terminal to add a default route for specific destinations (e.g. all traffic to apple.com out of one interface, all traffic to yahoo.com out the other). However, I wondered if web traffic could be forwarded out one connection, whilst email traffic goes through the other. Alternatively, it would be great if web traffic could be "halved" and sent out both wireless connections simultaneously, though I don't think there's an easy way to do this (it would just be a nice feature if possible).
Your thoughts and advice on the matter would be much appreciated, and I'm going to continue experimenting with various ideas and see what I come up with.

Hi all,
I've been reading up on this topic all day, with multiple Google and Apple searches, but haven't found the exact answer to this query. There was another post on this forum http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?threadID=1660762 which was vaguely similar.
Basically I'm looking to experiment with combining 2 wireless connections, and therefore 2 seperate internet connections into one Mac.
I have seen suggestions of using a couple of wireless -> ethernet bridges, since Leopard supports Link Aggregation of ethernet devices. But the first question I have is: since I use a 3rd party wireless adaptor (Netgear wg111v3 USB dongle), it already shows up in Network Preferences as an Ethernet port. Leopard treats it as an actual ethernet device, hence is oblivious to the fact it is a wireless adaptor. Since Leopard thinks it's an ethernet port, could I use a second wireless dongle and then use Link Aggregation on them both?
Additionally, if that idea were to work, would it then be possible to connect each wireless adaptor to a seperate wireless network, or would they both have to connect to the same access point?
My DSL connection is roughly 512k on a good day, but I find this bandwidth to be choked when someone else at home is streaming videos etc. So in principle my idea was to have one connection using the regular DSL line as usual, plus connect the secondary wireless to my friend's wireless over the road when needed (and yes he's already agreed to my use since he rarely accesses the net). Therefore, giving a total theoretical bandwidth of 512k x2.
Since I aim for a load-balancing idea (spreading traffic over both connections), the main issue I can forsee is that this Mac will have problems routing traffic with both IPs since I read somewhere else that DNS problems might occur.It seems relatively easy to use Terminal to add a default route for specific destinations (e.g. all traffic to apple.com out of one interface, all traffic to yahoo.com out the other). However, I wondered if web traffic could be forwarded out one connection, whilst email traffic goes through the other. Alternatively, it would be great if web traffic could be "halved" and sent out both wireless connections simultaneously, though I don't think there's an easy way to do this (it would just be a nice feature if possible).
Your thoughts and advice on the matter would be much appreciated, and I'm going to continue experimenting with various ideas and see what I come up with.

Link aggregation and DNS

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for