that will limit single stream to single port speed, will it not? So I would end up saturating one link while not using the other if a single stream were to get heavy?
On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 3:50 PM, Eric Kuhnke <[email protected]> wrote: > Don't try to do it at L2. Build it as router-to-router OSPF+BGP adjacency > across the two separate Integra links. > > Build it as two OSPF /30 links and use OSPF cost to adjust traffic > accordingly. > > > > On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 1:48 PM, Steve Jones <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> So we will be doing this integra 2+0 link. We got dinged by sprint though >> on the PCN. so we have to drop one sides power on one channel since this >> path has no other channels. This drops that one chain to 256qam (for >> reliability) from 1024 so 643-514mbps. This model 2+0 the radios dont >> communicate so its really just 2 separate links handled externally >> >> so I go from (643+643) / (643+643) to (514+643) / (643+643) >> >> Is there any way with LACP to account for this single path that will be >> lower than the other two? >> >> There is nothing that fully ties me to LACP. I have the option of HP >> procurve switches or Mikrotik CCR routers to handle the aggregation. >> >> As best I can tell LACP doesnt have any granular throughput definition, >> just splits traffic across all interfaces (last i read, routeros and the hp >> OS both allow full aggregate speed instead of single streams being limited >> to individual port throughput) >> >> In my case with 1.2gbps i still have an 800mbpsish overflow issue. so If >> there is an aggregation thats semi dynamic and granular to actual link >> capacity, that would tickle my goat >> >> any advice from the sages? >> >> Id like to keep my switch/routers solution to under 1k per side, much >> less if possible. I already have HP 1810g-24 that i believe will handle >> this, so theyre effectively free >> > >
