-3

From everything I read, If I wish to use link aggregation between 2 switches, they need to be managed switches--specifically, they need to support 802.3d spec.

Now that I fully understand the difference between a network bridge and a bond, can I use one of my servers as a interconnect between two switches, and bridge the bonds together?

I have a 24 port procurve and a 8 port trendnet, both are unmanaged gigabit switches. Due to physical restrictions it is not possible to connect all of my devices to the 24 port. I would like to use one of my servers to:

  1. create 2 sets of bonds w/ the 4 gigabit nics
  2. connect each switch to its own bond
  3. interconnect the two bonds via a bridge

enter image description here

Is this possible? Or is going to flood my lan with broadcasts?

tombull89
  • 2,964
  • 8
  • 41
  • 52
slugman
  • 1
  • 1
    Why do you wish to do this? Is there a larger goal? – ewwhite Sep 07 '14 at 18:30
  • As I mentioned earlier: "Due to physical restrictions it is not possible to connect all of my devices to the 24 port." And yes, my goal is to connect as many devices as possible, while utilizing the advantages of link aggregation: specifically, multiple 1Gbps links between the switches. While I will begin with two, I hope to use the same concept to eventually go to 4 links. – slugman Sep 07 '14 at 18:33
  • 1
    yes, *technically* it is possible. Linux' bonding code does not restrict bonds to the LACP/802.3ad mode of operation - see [the Kernel's docs on bonding, especially the "mode" parameter](https://www.kernel.org/doc/Documentation/networking/bonding.txt) . Logically, you will be bridging bond0 and bond1, not creating a network loop. But note that some of the balancing modes, especially the ones relying on ARP spoofing, are not going to work for bridged traffic - i.e. the traffic between the two switches. It's not worth the trouble IMO and certainly not a good fit for a production environment. – the-wabbit Sep 07 '14 at 19:11

2 Answers2

2

No no no... At this point, it makes sense to use managed switches if you need LACP (I'm not convinced you do). Anything else would be a bit tacky.

At the very least, you don't really want Layer 1 connectivity depending on a server. Beyond that, all devices in the chain need to be 802.3ad-aware.

Are you sure you need link aggregation, or is this just an academic exercise? What is the purpose of this solution?

Understanding why you need the bandwidth or LACP will help us guide you to a more appropriate solution.

ewwhite
  • 197,159
  • 92
  • 443
  • 809
  • 1
    I understand it makes sense. That being said, I am trying to make due with the resources I have at hand. Unfortunately, It is not within my grasp to purchase an extra set of unmanaged switches. If I was in charge of a budget, than use I would go at it. However, this is for my home lan, and I have several servers doing different tasks. I know it is tacky, but what I want to know is if it is going to create any networking problems. I tried connected 2 links between the switches already, and experienced firsthand my lan being flooded with broadcasts. – slugman Sep 07 '14 at 18:39
  • Disconnect them. This being your home network means the question is a bit off-topic. Also, network switches are not expensive. There's a low barrier to entry for managed switches. Do this the right way. – ewwhite Sep 07 '14 at 18:51
  • I'm sorry, I wasn't trying to sound arragont in any way. I am a poor college student. When I have the money, believe me I will do this the right way. I am trying to think of a solution that will implement the features I am looking for in the meantime. Also, since I have no formal network training, I just want to make sure this is a sane solution from you experienced networking gurus. – slugman Sep 07 '14 at 18:53
  • @slugman Please read [about] in particular the first exclusion - cheers. – user9517 Sep 07 '14 at 19:08
1

I applaud your creativity, but your solution makes me cringe. Why not arrange your servers in a way that you don't need more than one link worth of bandwidth between the switches?

Dennis Kaarsemaker
  • 19,277
  • 2
  • 44
  • 70