LAGG parent interface for VLAN

Currently, I have an unassigned em2 parent interface for my VLANs (em0 is WAN and em1 is LAN). I also have an unused 4th port in the nic.

Question: If I create a LAGG interface (LAGG0), with an LACP protocol, utilizing em2 and em3, is there any benefit if I used LAGG0 as the parent interface for the vlans?

NogBadTheBad

You have to use LAGG0 as the parent interface if you create a LAGG.

I should provide more details.

Currently, port 1 of the switch (US-16-150W) is used as the trunk port. It physically connects to em1 (LAN). EM2, the parent interface for the VLANs, is not physically connected (to the switch or any other device).

If I create a LAGG with em2 and em3, will there be any benefit if those ports are not physically connected to the switch?

NogBadTheBad

@surfshack66 said in LAGG parent interface for VLAN:

I should provide more details.

Currently, port 1 of the switch (US-16-150W) is used as the trunk port. It physically connects to em1 (LAN). EM2, the parent interface for the VLANs, is not physically connected (to the switch or any other device).

If I create a LAGG with em2 and em3, will there be any benefit if those ports are not physically connected to the switch?

You'll need to create a LAGG on your US-16-150W as well, not exactly sure why you'd create a LAGG one end and trunk the other.

IIRC you can't set up LACP without a minimum of two lan ports.

You'll need to create a LAGG on your US-16-150W as well, not exactly sure why you'd create a LAGG one end and trunk the other.

IIRC you can't set up LACP without a minimum of two lan ports.

Two lan ports or two physical ports?

I can create a LAGG on the switch using ports 2 and 3, for example, but still confused on the following:

Port 2 and 3 on the switch need to physically connect to em2 and em3?
Leave port 1 on the switch connected to em1 (lan)?

Ultimately, I don't want to mix tagged and untagged traffic on the same interface.

Derelict

You can set up LACP with just one port to get it going then add more ports.

Usually adding ports is nearly hitless. Removing ports from the group is usually not. Many switches require you to tear down the lagg to remove a port.

Yes, you can leave em1 connected to the switch as well. You would likely want that one a different VLAN on the switch than anything tagged to the lagg.

You could easily move LAN to the lagg too. Say you had:

em1 (LAN) untagged to the switch. The switch port is untagged VLAN 20.

tag VLAN 20 on the switch lagg
create VLAN 20 on the pfSense lagg0
In Interfaces > Assignments change the assignment from em1 to VLAN 20 on lagg0

Everything about LAN on pfSense now reaches VLAN 20 over the lagg instead and em1 is available for assignment to other things.

@derelict said in LAGG parent interface for VLAN:

You can set up LACP with just one port to get it going then add more ports.

Usually adding ports is nearly hitless. Removing ports from the group is usually not. Many switches require you to tear down the lagg to remove a port.

Yes, you can leave em1 connected to the switch as well. You would likely want that one a different VLAN on the switch than anything tagged to the lagg.

You could easily move LAN to the lagg too. Say you had:

em1 (LAN) untagged to the switch. The switch port is untagged VLAN 20.

tag VLAN 20 on the switch lagg
create VLAN 20 on the pfSense lagg0
In Interfaces > Assignments change the assignment from em1 to VLAN 20 on lagg0

Everything about LAN on pfSense now reaches VLAN 20 over the lagg instead and em1 is available for assignment to other things.

Thanks.

Can you explain the recommendation to change em1 (LAN) to a different VLAN on the switch?

Derelict

It's not a recommendation. It's an example.