|
Posted by Glenn on October 30, 2007, 5:45 am
If you were Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
Hi,
Is there a benefit to multiple linkups between two switches ?
Meaning connecting two or more network cables from one switch to the
other. (analogue to NIC teaming/aggregation, putting multiple network
cards into a same pc to increase throughput)
if so, will any switch do or must the switches specifically support
this?
in the latter case, how would such a feature be called?
best regards
glenn
|
 
| |
Posted by Rick Jones on October 30, 2007, 1:53 pm
If you were Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
> Is there a benefit to multiple linkups between two switches ?
> Meaning connecting two or more network cables from one switch to the
> other. (analogue to NIC teaming/aggregation, putting multiple network
> cards into a same pc to increase throughput)
The benefits are the same as for NIC to switch - the increased
*aggregate* throughput you mention, and some addtional resiliance in
the face of failures.
> if so, will any switch do or must the switches specifically support
> this? in the latter case, how would such a feature be called?
IIRC the IEEE standard for this is 802.3ad and is called "Link
Aggregation." You might see mention of the Link Aggregation Control
Protocol or LACP. There is a prior, proprietary Cisco
FastEtherChannel out there. I'd suggest going with the de jure
standards whenever possible.
Switch vendors might also mention teaming or bonding or perhaps
trunking, but I'm learning that trunking might mean something else in
some contexts.
rick jones
--
denial, anger, bargaining, depression, acceptance, rebirth...
where do you want to be today?
these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not want them anyway... :)
feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hp.com but NOT BOTH...
|
|
Posted by gr on October 30, 2007, 9:35 pm
If you were Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
> Hi,
>
> Is there a benefit to multiple linkups between two switches ?
> Meaning connecting two or more network cables from one switch to the
> other. (analogue to NIC teaming/aggregation, putting multiple network
> cards into a same pc to increase throughput)
>
> if so, will any switch do or must the switches specifically support
> this?
> in the latter case, how would such a feature be called?
>
> best regards
> glenn
>
>
With 3com switches , you can designate multiple ports as trunks, and
have those direct connected to trunk ports on another 3 com switch.
Trunks allow more bandwidth between switches and connection redundancy.
If the switches are in the same rack, it is better to use the matrix
connector on the back (way bigger bandwidth!)
gr
|
|
Posted by Glenn on November 5, 2007, 11:02 am
If you were Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
Now I know what I must look for.
my hp procurve supports lacp.
sadly the new main 3com baseline 24port gbit does not.
guess I'll buy another procurve and put the 3com as a 'local' switch on
one end.
regards
glenn
|
| Similar Threads | Posted | | killing ethernet connections | October 28, 2005, 2:02 am |
| slow TCP connections due to very different speed of segments? | March 10, 2005, 2:08 am |
| Dropped packets/broken TCP connections | August 23, 2006, 9:48 am |
| VLAN 2 Internet Connections. Send PC's down 1 ISP, VoIP phones down 2nd ISP | April 1, 2006, 8:08 am |
| 802.3ad and multiple mac addresses | June 4, 2007, 2:25 pm |
| Multiple T1 transmissions on Cat5E | August 8, 2005, 6:45 am |
| Multiple VLANs on Single NIC | January 19, 2006, 8:06 am |
| Systems can be 1-3 kms apart; 1 or multiple LANs? | April 2, 2007, 7:16 am |
| Multiple PHYs to a single MAC | April 11, 2007, 10:30 am |
| multiple MACs on a port | April 27, 2007, 7:53 am |
|
|
Yahoo! 
Google 
Windows Live 
del.icio.us 
digg 
Netscape 
XML site map