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.

Similar Messages

Cannot Establish Gigabit Link Between Catalyst Switches and GSR Router

The GSR Gigabit interface is configured for no negotiation auto and the line protocol goes up when connected to the Catalyst switch.
The Catalyst switch port remains unconnected even when it is physically attached to the GSR router.

The flow control settings must match on both sides for the link to come up. It is highly recommended that you configure auto-negotiation to on for both devices. (Auto-negotiation is enabled by default on all Catalyst switches.) Otherwise, if you have a layer 1 problem, the link remains up and a unidirectional link will result.
The initial software releases that support Gigabit Ethernet on the GSR router do not support gigabit auto-negotiation.
The following command configures gigabit auto-negotiation on the Catalyst 6000/6500:
set port negotiation module/port disable|enable

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

2 switches and 1 router

What is the best method to connect 2 switches to 1 router when both switches run the same VLANs? Method A - Enable etherchannel on the router and connect both switches to the router. Method B -Connect the two switches together and then connect one of the switches to the router.

You are (probably) looking for a BVI - Bridged Virtual Interface (or maybe IRB - Integrated Route/Bridging ....don't remember).
The bridged interfaces talk to each other as if connected via bridge/switch, the collective bridged interfaces talk to the other side as if it was an individual routed interface.
So, each of your switches connect to a router's ethernet, those interfaces are bridged. The Bridged ethernet interfaces talk to (for example) a serial interface as a single unit/address/broadcast domain.
Check it out
Good Luck
Scott

Discover Switch and router over VPN

i am in contact with a company having many branches connecting over VPN tunnel and with different IP range in each branch
how can i configure the LMs to discover my switch and my router over VPN

LMS 3.0.1 and higher can use non-CDP discovery methods which should be able to find your remotely connected VPN devices. You could use the Ping Sweep or Route Table modules to accomplish what you want.
See https://supportforums.cisco.com/docs/DOC-9005 for more details.

Cisco Architectures for 2950/2960 Switches and 2800 Routers

Hello,
I have a question regarding the architectures of these three series, i.e. the type of switch fabric they use and the general architecture (first, second, or third generation regarding the sharing of the bus, memory and the type of switch fabric). We have so far learned these three generation and our assumption is that the only generation being produced now is the third (crossbar) generation, but so far we have to information to back up this claim. We are doing a study on buffer sizing in edge routers/switches so knowing the exact architecture of each model is our priority.
Thank you for reading and thanks in advance for the answers.

Disclaimer
The Author of this posting offers the information contained within this posting without consideration and with the reader's understanding that there's no implied or expressed suitability or fitness for any purpose. Information provided is for informational purposes only and should not be construed as rendering professional advice of any kind. Usage of this posting's information is solely at reader's own risk.
Liability Disclaimer
In no event shall Author be liable for any damages whatsoever (including, without limitation, damages for loss of use, data or profit) arising out of the use or inability to use the posting's information even if Author has been advised of the possibility of such damage.
Posting
Exact details on Cisco switch and/or router architecture can be hard to come by, as much of the information, Cisco appears to consider proprietary.
Most switches have some kind of cross bar architecture. Overall bandwidth tends to be higher in later variants (to support higher port densities and/or higher bandwidth ports). Later switch architectures are less likely to block at ports. However, there are often other architecture changes which may improve or worsen performance. For example, 2960 tends to have more fabric bandwidth than the 2950, but the 2960 has different port buffer management (I believe) from the 2950, often resulting in more port drops with bursty traffic.
True routers, like the 2800 series, I believe use a PCI bus, with additional bandwidth restrictions to the modules. They will well support the WAN bandwidths they are recommended for, but they do not well support LAN port bandwidths. Again, specific architecture details can be hard to come by.

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).

What are the major differences between a Access Switch and Aggregation Switch w.r.t Carrier Ethernet domain?

In a Carrier Ethernet domain,Could someone please help me understand what's the basic difference between Access Switch and Aggregation Switch both in terms of s/w and h/w functionalities. MEF deals OAM,CFM, EVC provisioning only at the access edge switches. Do we need to repeat all these at the aggregation level? or is it just used for routing purpose? Do we have a separate Fault Management at the aggregation level?

Duplicate posts. :P
Go here: https://supportforums.cisco.com/discussion/12137156/what-are-major-differences-between-access-switch-and-aggregation-switch-wrt

Is it recommended to use HSRP or multiple default between Core Layer Switch and Customer Edge Router?

My client is asking me for following
Client is using Router as edge device. 2 WAN links from different service provider ( each 20 Mbps) are getting terminated on the router. There are internal servers present in the network. Client want to make setup such that even if one wan link fails internet users should be able to access web server. Moreover if the edge router fails there should be secondary edge device so that there is device redundancy ?
As per my understanding, in this scenario we need to do static one - to - one natting(belonging to WAN interface subnet). If we use two routers as Customer edge ans if we connect core layer switch to these two router, is it recommended to use HSRP/VRRP/GLBP or two default route on core switch pointing to two routers with equal ad value. we will also track the wan link with help of ip sla.
which is recommended solution Router redundancy protocol or Default routes.?

Just had another read of this post and some other points have come up.
1) I assumed your secondary link was for redundancy but you talk about terminating both SP links on the same router in your first paragraph.
Did you mean this or are you going to be terminating a link per router ?
2) are you using the second router purely for backup ?
3) something you didn't ask about but is relevant is the IP addressing. Are you using provider independent addressing or does each SP provide you with an address block.
If it is the second then you are going to have an issue with the web server. The problem is which provider's IP do you use for the web server ie.
if you use the primary provider IP then that will be the DNS record on the internet. If the primary router fails then the IP address will change on the secondary router but DNS will still be handing out the primary IP.
If you enter both IPs (primary and secondary) into DNS then you would get load balancing but this means both links will be used and the secondary would not just be backup.
In addition if one of the links fails then DNS does not know this so it will still be handing out the failed address as well as the address that is still up which means some connections will work and some won't.
Jon

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?

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?

Link Aggregation to 2 switches for Failover

I know this subject has been commented on in the past but I'm looking for fresh opinions.
Here is my scenario:
5 intel xserve 10.6.4 with 4 nics (2 onboard 2 PCI)
Our network switches support LACP but only for ports on that switch, we can not split our bonded nics to two switches. (Our switches do not support meshing)
I'm interested in failover more than throughput.
By setting the bondmode to static the failover works but we run the risk of overloading the switch since the MAC address of the bonded nics constantly hops between ports on the switch. (mac-flap)
If I bind 2 interfaces to a switch and 2 to another I now have 2 different IP addresses and although I eliminate the switch as a single point of failure I now have a DNS issue.
Any ideas would be appreciated.

By setting the bondmode to static the failover works but we run the risk of overloading the switch since the MAC address of the bonded nics constantly hops between ports on the switch. (mac-flap)
You really, really don't want to do this. Most switches force a pause (even if only for a few milliseconds) whenever a MAC flaps like this. That will wreak havoc on sustained throughput (e.g. when downloading files, for example). Don't go there.
If I bind 2 interfaces to a switch and 2 to another I now have 2 different IP addresses and although I eliminate the switch as a single point of failure I now have a DNS issue.
There are ways of getting over this, depending on your network topology/routing. One would be to migrate the IP address of the failed interface to the other interface should the link fail - a simple shell script should be able to do this.
Any ideas would be appreciated.
Don't fall into the trap of over-engineering your network. Before you go much further think about the last time your switch failed. Most switches (especially reputable brands) have reliability bordering on rock-solid, so you might be trying to cater for an event that will never happen. In my experience, servers go down far more often than switches do (even if just for regular maintenance) so you might consider how to protect services if/when your server goes down more than when your switch does.

Link aggregation stradling two switches?

Hey guys, I'm back with more questions about Link agregation. I figured out that I do have to manually configure both of my switches to support it. Now though I'm stuck with trying to figure out the best way to implement it. I have a Netgear FSM726 and a Linksys EF24G2. Both are 24-port 100BT switches with 2 Gigabit ports on them. They are currently setup like this: The Xserve runs with one gigabit port going into one of the gigabit ports on the Linksys. The other gigabit port on the linksys runs into the Netgear to join the two together. That leaves one open gigabit port on the netgear.
So in order to setup link aggregation I'd have to use two gigabit ports on one of the switches, or use two 100BT ports. Alternatively, I was thinking if I setup link aggregation on the Xserve and then just ran each of the two lines into one gigabit port on both switches it may work without having to do any configuring on the switches? Will that cause any problems with network traffic?
If I go with the gigabit port on one switch idea, as far as I see, I'd have to join the two switches with a 100BT connection instead of the current gigabit line. I'm not even sure if that matters really. So which way is a better way to go? Also, if I go with using the gigabit ports on one switch, can I use two open 100BT ports to join into the other switch for increased bandwidth? Thanks for helping out here.

Steve has it right. Link aggregation only works between two devices (e.g. a server and a switch, or two switches). You cannot link three devices (a server and two switches) using a single link aggregation. That's because of how the traffic flows over the link.
Your best solution depends on the traffic patterns on your network - where are the clients that are hitting this server?
If you have a dozen clients that hit the server a lot, plus more clients that don't hit it much (or at all), plus printers, etc., you could use two of the gigabit ports on one switch as a link aggregate to the server and plug the busy clients into that switch, then plug the other clients into the other switch, using a 100base-T link (or multiple 100base-T links) to connect to two switches together.
This may or may not be viable, in which case a separate gigabit switch to connect the server and the two existing switches may be the best solution.

Link Aggregation - computer to switch-pair

Hi all,
According to the Mac OS X Server documentation (http://images.apple.com/server/macosx/docs/AdvancedServer_Adminv10.6.pdf, page 165), it is possible to create a "Computer to switch-pair" scenario, to provide a redundant network connection for an Xserve running OS X Server 10.5 or 10.6.
What I would like to set up, is for an Xserve to connect to 2 different switches (using link aggregation as described in the manual), so that if a switch fails, the Xserve retains connectivity (using the same IP address).
Has anyone managed to do this in reality? If so, would you mind telling me how it is configured? Info on how to set this up is non-existent...even a local Apple engineer was unable to help.
If it helps, I'm connecting my Xserves to either: (a) a pair of HP ProCurve 2810-24G switches, or (b) HP ProCurve 8200zl and 5400zl switch
Thanks in advance for any assistance.
Cheers,
Dave.

Link aggregation can give you redundancy and greater bandwidth by allowing you to combine Ethernet ports, but the ports must be connected to the same switch. I don't believe there is a way to connect to two different switches using the same IP as technically that would create a loop, which would bring the connection on your Mac to a halt, if not slow down the entire switch.
Switch failure isn't super-common, at least not in my experience, and you're using good switches to begin with. I would create a link if you need more bandwidth to the switch for, say, a fileserver but otherwise, I wouldn't worry about it.
If you do decide to try link aggregating, you need to do two things:
In OS X under Network Prefs go to > (Gear Icon) Manage Virtual Interfaces > New Link Aggregate... and combine your ports there. In the new Network panel created for the new ethernet bond, enter your TCP/IP settings.
In the switch, you need to enable LACP (Link Aggregation Control Protocol) for each port you want to include in the link aggregation. This is usually just a checkbox in the main ports page of the switch admin interface. Many switches don't support link aggregation, so if you can't find it easily, make sure your switch actually includes it.
JM

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.

Link Aggregation: LGS318P Switch and LRT214 Router

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for