On 2026-11-02, Samuel Thibault <[email protected]> wrote: > Samuel Thibault, le lun. 02 nov. 2026 16:37:20 +0100, a ecrit: >> Stuart Henderson, le lun. 02 nov. 2026 15:23:03 +0000, a ecrit: >> > On 2026/11/02 16:15, Samuel Thibault wrote: >> > > Stuart Henderson, le lun. 02 nov. 2026 13:20:19 +0000, a ecrit: >> > > > On 2026-11-01, Samuel Thibault <[email protected]> wrote: >> > > > > With the disappearance of the trunk(4), we have lost the >> > > > > loadbalance/roundrobin options. Since the upgrade we are seeing our >> > > > > router send all its trafic only on one interface. >> > > > >> > > > hmm? trunk(4) is still there for failover/loadbalance/roundrobin. >> > > > The only thing that was removed is trunk(4)'s LACP mode. >> > > >> > > And we use that, so in the immediate term, we cannot use trunk any more. >> > >> > In that case, I don't understand why you said "we have lost the >> > loadbalance/roundrobin options"? >> >> Well, because we cannot use trunk any more with LACP? >> >> To recap: >> >> - if we use aggr(4), openbsd won't announce LACP, so the switch >> fallsback to only one link, and thus will not enable any >> failover/loadbalance on its side. Not having even failover is rather a >> no-go. >> >> - if we use trunk(4), we won't have the loadbalance option on the >> openbsd side. > > Ergl, of course I mixed the two up, sorry... > > To recap: > > - if we use trunk(4), openbsd won't announce LACP, so the switch > fallsback to only one link, and thus will not enable any > failover/loadbalance on its side. Not having even failover is rather a > no-go.
trunkproto failover doesn't need anything special, you can use it even with dumb switches. (I use it quite a lot; avoids semi-complicated stack / multi-chassis aggregation protocols between switches...as long as you don't run out of link capacity) if you have a switch which can do static config of link-aggregation you can almsot certainly also use loadbalance between two ports on one switch. may or may not be possible cross-chassis though. > - if we use aggr(4), we won't have the loadbalance option on the > > Samuel > > -- Please keep replies on the mailing list.
