where would you define the link capacities in OSPF setup?
What makes L3 preferable to L2 for this?

In my particular case, im going to leave the rb1100ahx2 in place and bring
the fiber down to HP switches. Mainly because I have the switches and dont
want to immediately replace the routers with $1k+ routers until we have
settled on the bonding just to get SFP. If L3 is preferred I can just vlan
the ports I guess.

Another question, is 2+0 normally something that the radios handle the
bonding in? This setup is an outlier. It wasnt even listed on SAF as an
option for this model until this.

On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 2:25 PM, Dennis Burgess <dmburg...@linktechs.net>
wrote:

> MT using OSPF is the proper method, LACP does not take into account
> loading, its jus a LAG group, and it will be 1:1. That’s it.  OSPF you can
> acutallly load balance 3:1 or 6:1 etc, but the more connections the better
> the load balance.  But that is the number of connections, not actual load
> but again, if you have lots of connections then it will balance out.  Plus
> failover is simpler as well (at least in my eyes)
>
>
>
>
>
> *Dennis Burgess** –** Network Solution Engineer – Consultant *
>
> MikroTik Certified Trainer/Consultant
> <http://www.linktechs.net/productcart/pc/viewcontent.asp?idpage=5> –
> MTCNA, MTCRE, MTCWE, MTCTCE, MTCINE
>
>
>
> For Wireless Hardware/Routers visit www.linktechs.net
>
> Radio Frequency Coverages: www.towercoverage.com
>
> Office: 314-735-0270 <(314)%20735-0270>
>
> E-Mail: dmburg...@linktechs.net
>
>
>
> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Mathew Howard
> *Sent:* Monday, January 15, 2018 2:01 PM
> *To:* af <af@afmug.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] LACP or what for non symetric throughput
>
>
>
> It looks like Mikrotik supports several different types of bonding, some
> of which appear to support asymmetrical links. I just started looking into
> this stuff myself, so I really don't know what I'm talking about... I'm
> currently just using OSPF to load balance a couple of links, and I'm trying
> to figure out if there's a better way we should be doing it.
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 1:46 PM, Steve Jones <thatoneguyst...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> so what options do I have here/ we are currently bench testing lacp in HP
> switches to get moving, but need a longer term better solution
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 6:38 PM, Steve Jones <thatoneguyst...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> im not being argumentative btw, im outside my scope, just showing my data
> sources. I honestly dont know what to do here.
>
>
>
>
>
> If a contractor here wants to offer some services, i have that budget as
> well. Im not certain our usual contractor will give me what i need... and
> butch doesnt answer my emails
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 5:01 PM, Steve Jones <thatoneguyst...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> https://forum.mikrotik.com/viewtopic.php?t=110400
>
>
>
> If Im reading the mikrotik guy (MRZ) response correctly. mikrotik will
> balance a single stream across multiple ports
>
>
>
> I put my comprehension at a 10% reliability, so....
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 4:17 PM, Josh Baird <joshba...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> You will have the same limitation using LACP.
>
>
> On Jan 12, 2018, at 5:00 PM, Steve Jones <thatoneguyst...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> 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 <eric.kuh...@gmail.com>
> 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 <thatoneguyst...@gmail.com>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Reply via email to