Failover LAGG of LACP LAGGs (Nested LAGG)
-
I'd like to create 2 LACP LAGGs (each to separate switches) then build a failover LAGG on top of that (and VLAN tags on top of that). Is this something that can be accomplished?
-
You can't put a lagg into another lagg.
Why would you even want to do this?
-
Get switches that support proper stacking and then just use one lagg with four ports across two chassis.
If your switches don't support stacking, then you're out of luck for proper cross-switch failover.
-
You can't put a lagg into another lagg.
Why would you even want to do this?
It's quite simple really, I'm attempting to attach to 2 separate physical switches for failover and want more than a single GB of throughput, I do this often with NetApp equipment. Up until Cisco Nexus stacking across chassis (Virtual Port Channel) is not supported.
-
Get switches that support proper stacking and then just use one lagg with four ports across two chassis.
If your switches don't support stacking, then you're out of luck for proper cross-switch failover.
Any chance of this being an option in the future? any idea if it's a FreeBSD or pfSense specific limitation?
-
A "lagg of laggs" I'm not sure will ever come to be.
If you use only the "failover" mode, it might work, though it's largely unverified.
LACP is known/proven to work in that situation, provided your switches are stackable.
-
Get switches that support proper stacking and then just use one lagg with four ports across two chassis.
If your switches don't support stacking, then you're out of luck for proper cross-switch failover.
Any chance of this being an option in the future? any idea if it's a FreeBSD or pfSense specific limitation?
Neither. It's a limitation of your switches in that case. One that's impossible to work around without your switches being involved. Ethernet bonding in general can't be nested.
-
I'll point out that even Netgear ProSafe switches in a stack can support a LAG distributed across two or more switches in the stack.
