[nog] LACP between swiches and Linux

[Stefan Dimitrov]

Hi all,

below are some interesting links concerning IEEE 802.3ad LACP in CentOS6
&7 (RHEL7) respectively:

https://www.centos.org/docs/5/html/5.2/Deployment_Guide/s3-modules-bonding-directives.html

http://www.serverlab.ca/tutorials/linux/administration-linux/bonding-network-interfaces-in-centos-6/

https://access.redhat.com/discussions/1175203

The Wikipedia link is:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Link_aggregation#Link_Aggregation_Control_Protocol

Best Regards,
Stefan Dimitrov

On 11/29/2014 01:41 AM, Marian Marinov wrote:
> On 11/29/2014 12:20 AM, Boyan Krosnov wrote:
> > As usual too little sleep leads to mistakes.
>
> > 802.1ax is LACP, not MC-LAG. MC-LAG is only available in a few
> implementations which follow the LACP protocol, but
> > split one (or both) of LACP end-points to multiple devices
> (chassis). To achieve this they need to do some form of
> > synchronization between the two (or more) parts of the endpoint.
>
> > Now depending on what you are trying to achieve, you may do link
> aggregation / bonding without LACP. You may use
> > some other form link monitoring, e.g. ICMP or ARP. In that case you
> simply put both ports on the switches in the
> > same VLAN/VLANs, and make sure frames from a particular MAC address
> are always sent over the same link (as switches
> > don't like updating their mac address table too often).
>
>
> I was just curious :)
>
> I'm well aware of what can be achieved with pure bonding setup. But
> since this is the NOG group I wanted to learn is
> it at all possible to achieve something like that using HW devices.
>
> Thanks for the info Boyan,
>
> Marian
>
> > Best regards, BK
>
> > On 2014-11-28 22:22, Boyan Krosnov wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> The standard way of doing this is 802.1ax.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MC-LAG It is unlikely your switch
> >> supports this.
> >>
> >> There are non-standard implementations which come disguised as
> "switch stacking". That's also unlikely to be
> >> supported by your switch.
> >>
> >> It is probably easier to make this work with a static config,
> rather than LACP.
> >>
> >> Best regards, BK
> >>
> >> On 2014-11-28 21:28, Marian Marinov wrote:
> > Hi guys, I'm curious have anyone managed to make LACP working
> between two Switches and one Linux box? The setup is
> > simple, the linux box has two ethernets, each connected to separate
> switches. The switches have direct connectivity
> > between them.
>
> > Is it at all possible. The protocol it self does not impose
> restrictions on LACP ports to be on the same physical
> > device, but I don't know if there is an HW implementation that can
> actually do that.
>
> > Marian
>
> > -- Marian Marinov Founder & CEO of 1H Ltd. Jabber/GTalk:
> hackman at jabber.org ICQ: 7556201 Mobile: +359 886 660 270
> >>> _______________________________________________ Nog mailing list
> Nog at nog.bg
> >>> http://lists.ludost.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nog
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________ Nog mailing list
> Nog at nog.bg
> >> http://lists.ludost.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nog
>
> > _______________________________________________ Nog mailing list
> Nog at nog.bg
> > http://lists.ludost.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nog
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Nog mailing list
> Nog at nog.bg
> http://lists.ludost.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nog


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ludost.net/pipermail/nog/attachments/20141130/303d36a0/attachment.html>