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 >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >
