How does one bond two interfaces together to share bandwidth?
I am trying to figure out how to bond or combine 2 interfaces together. Such that they each share traffic. I have tried one way, however when I use it I seem to have an odd broadcast occuring on my switch. Such that I am seeing incoming traffic hit some other ports on the switch. Can someone confirm if I am doing it correctly? Perhaps I have a switch issue? Do I also need to bond the ports together on the switch? Sadly the switch they are connected to does not support port bonding. Does that matter? I have not seen any mention of that being required. I have: /usr/sbin/ngctl -f- -SEQ mkpeer fec dummy fec msg fec0: add_iface em0 msg fec0: add_iface em1 msg fec0: set_mode_inet SEQ Thanks for any help! Nicole The Large Print Giveth And The Small Print Taketh Away -- Anon Do you Yahoo!? Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta. http://new.mail.yahoo.com ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: How does one bond two interfaces together to share bandwidth?
On Dec 13, 2006, at 5:01 PM, N. Harrington wrote: I have tried one way, however when I use it I seem to have an odd broadcast occuring on my switch. Such that I am seeing incoming traffic hit some other ports on the switch. Can someone confirm if I am doing it correctly? Perhaps I have a switch issue? Do I also need to bond the ports together on the switch? Yes, the switch would need to support Cisco's FEC protocol if you want to use ng_fec with it. Sadly the switch they are connected to does not support port bonding. Does that matter? Yep. In many cases, a single 100Mbs link does just fine, but if you need more bandwidth, you can pick up a gigabit NIC nowadays for not much. Picking up a GB-capable switch is more expensive, but perhaps your existing switch might have one or a couple of GB ports... -- -Chuck ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: How does one bond two interfaces together to share bandwidth?
In the last episode (Dec 13), N. Harrington said: I am trying to figure out how to bond or combine 2 interfaces together. Such that they each share traffic. I have tried one way, however when I use it I seem to have an odd broadcast occuring on my switch. Such that I am seeing incoming traffic hit some other ports on the switch. Can someone confirm if I am doing it correctly? Perhaps I have a switch issue? Do I also need to bond the ports together on the switch? Sadly the switch they are connected to does not support port bonding. Does that matter? I have not seen any mention of that being required. If the remote switch doesn't support it, only outgoing traffic will be split across both ports. Incoming traffic will probably come in on the first port that came up, or the switch may decide that there's a routing loop (or other misconfiguration) because the same MAC address is seen on both ports, and disable one of the ports (or even both). Most managed switches should support it; they may call it trunking. -- Dan Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: How does one bond two interfaces together to share bandwidth?
On Wednesday 13 December 2006 19:08, Chuck Swiger wrote: On Dec 13, 2006, at 5:01 PM, N. Harrington wrote: I have tried one way, however when I use it I seem to have an odd broadcast occuring on my switch. Such that I am seeing incoming traffic hit some other ports on the switch. Can someone confirm if I am doing it correctly? Perhaps I have a switch issue? Do I also need to bond the ports together on the switch? Yes, the switch would need to support Cisco's FEC protocol if you want to use ng_fec with it. Sadly the switch they are connected to does not support port bonding. Does that matter? Yep. In many cases, a single 100Mbs link does just fine, but if you need more bandwidth, you can pick up a gigabit NIC nowadays for not much. Picking up a GB-capable switch is more expensive, but perhaps your existing switch might have one or a couple of GB ports... Maybe ng_one2many would be of some use depending on the exact situation. -- Thanks, Josh Paetzel ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: How does one bond two interfaces together to share bandwidth?
Hello: On Dec 13, 2006, at 5:13 PM, Dan Nelson wrote: In the last episode (Dec 13), N. Harrington said: I am trying to figure out how to bond or combine 2 interfaces together. Such that they each share traffic. I have tried one way, however when I use it I seem to have an odd broadcast occuring on my switch. Such that I am seeing incoming traffic hit some other ports on the switch. Can someone confirm if I am doing it correctly? Perhaps I have a switch issue? Do I also need to bond the ports together on the switch? Sadly the switch they are connected to does not support port bonding. Does that matter? I have not seen any mention of that being required. If the remote switch doesn't support it, only outgoing traffic will be split across both ports. Incoming traffic will probably come in on the first port that came up, or the switch may decide that there's a routing loop (or other misconfiguration) because the same MAC address is seen on both ports, and disable one of the ports (or even both). Most managed switches should support it; they may call it trunking. Both sides need to support EtherChannel which is 802.3ad (although Cisco does have a proprietary variant (go figure)). If only one side is set to channel and the other side is not, the non-channeled side will detect a loop and set one of the ports into blocking state; that is, if it's Spanning Tree aware. If it's a consumer-grade switch or hub, the network will do the functional equivalent of a Bill the Cat face and fall over most dramatically. Regards, Mike ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
