LACP and or Etherchannel support on the 2024 and or 2124?

  • 1
  • Question
  • Updated 3 years ago
  • Answered
With 802.11ac on the horizon (phase one anyway)....

Are there any plans to support LACP on the 2024 and or the 2124 switches or in future firmware or future switches etc?

If so, In time for 802.11ac phase 2?

Any support for Etherchannel planned?

Here's an odd question.... as an employee for an agency that is constantly pinching pennies.... I cringe whenever I plug a Non-PoE device into a PoE port. I cringe because I don't have PoE network wide and I never know when I'll need it so I try hard to NOT plug non-PoE devices into PoE ports. I realize for a lot of folks this won't be an issue and that they likely don't think twice about it.

So for folks in my situation... if I had a 24x port PoE switch and I had 12 (Phase 2) 802.11ac APs.... I'll patch each AP into my switch once for 1gb link and PoE..... then if I want the second 1gb link I'll have to patch the 12 (already powered from the first link) APs into my remaining 12 PoE ports...thus wasting 12 PoE ports (at least wasting the PoE portion). Or will there be some secret mojo going on such that I can patch Eth0 of my AP into PoESW1 (for 1gb link and PoE) and then patch Eth1 into (a different switch) NonPoESW1 for the additional 1gb link and somehow my AP and switches will manage the traffic correctly and efficiently?

And let me know if any of that doesn't make sense and it just caused your brain to explode.

- John
Photo of intvlan1shut

intvlan1shut

  • 29 Posts
  • 1 Reply Like

Posted 5 years ago

  • 1
Photo of Fernando Camargo

Fernando Camargo

  • 5 Posts
  • 3 Reply Likes
Hey the Switches 2X24 have Aggregation.
Not use the LACP protocol, but work like Etherchannel.

The switch hardware creates a hash of the the header fields in frames selected for load balancing, for determining the ports in an aggregate to send a frame
Load balancing options are:
Source & Destination MAC, IP, and Port
Source & Destination IP Port
Source & Destination IP
Source & Destination MAC
Photo of Anoop Dawar

Anoop Dawar

  • 26 Posts
  • 16 Reply Likes
John,

The switches support static port-aggregation today and LACP is certainly very high on our list to do.

With respect to the suggestion you had -- let me say that it is a very cool suggestion indeed.

Before we go down that path too much though - some things to think about.

Lets use AP330 as an example for now instead of our future 802.11ac product -because we try not to talk about future products before they are ready.

Are you plugging the AP into two Gigabit Ethernet ports for high-availability? If the GigE PoE port went down wouldn't the AP be powered down anyways? In this scenario - high availability is not achieved.

If the purpose is to have load-balancing of traffic (that is generally a good idea) because you are anticipating that the next-gen 802.11ac product will have more than 1Gig of backhaul throughput - then I have to temper your expectations a bit.

Although 3x3:3 802.11ac PHY promises to be 1.3Gbps, the actual throughput on the LAN/wired side will still be less than 1Gig.

Hope this answers your questions.

Anoop
Photo of intvlan1shut

intvlan1shut

  • 29 Posts
  • 1 Reply Like
Thank you both for the replies.

Fernando - Thanks for the info. Admittedly, I just searched the .pdf data sheet (for the switches) for "LACP" and "Etherchannel" and, having received no hits on my search I came here to ask.

Anoop - as for "Are you plugging the AP into two Gigabit Ethernet ports for high-availability? If the GigE PoE port went down wouldn't the AP be powered down anyways? In this scenario - high availability is not achieved." Ideally (in a perfect world) we would like to have two 1gb POE drops to each AP for both load balancing and redundant power (IE if one port failed the AP would stay up etc). The reality, at least in my case is that POE switches are expensive and we don't have VoIP everywhere to help counter balance the cost of deploying shiny new POE switches. Right now, POE switches are the exception in my network. I think I might have 1 POE switch for every 20 - 30 non-POE switches which is why I'm so guarded of the POE port use at this time. We are planning a total layer two refresh but the wheels of progression grind slowly around here so there's no telling when POE will be the norm rather than the exception.

When you say "Although 3x3:3 802.11ac PHY promises to be 1.3Gbps, the actual throughput on the LAN/wired side will still be less than 1Gig." - Are you referring to the first iteration/phase of 802.11ac or are you saying that is the max it will ever be even in the second iteration / phase two?

Even if you're reffering to "phase one" 802.11ac and it won't technically break 1gb..... What if I had the following scenario... 2x 802.11ac APs that are "Meshed" to a 3rd 802.11ac AP.... Might I break 1gb back to my switch from that 3rd AP as it will now be forwarding traffic from not only itself but 2 other APs? Such that it might be beneficial to have the 2x 1gb drops from the 3rd AP back to the switch/router in the closet?

And if the "phase 2" 802.11ac will get close to 2gb or more than I can certainly see the attractiveness of having the two 1gb drops to each AP or in the example above, just the 3rd AP since the other two are meshed.
Photo of Anoop Dawar

Anoop Dawar

  • 26 Posts
  • 16 Reply Likes
John,

Meshing uses the radio of the portal AP to receive data/traffic from other AP's. So the portal AP still cannot exceed its RF limitations. Infact meshing increases the overhead and therefore the theoretical radio PHY limit is unlikely to be hit.

To put it another way, a 3x3:3 portal AP has a max capacity -whether or not it is being used as a mesh portal for other AP's. I hope that clears up your question around meshing.

Gen 2 802.11ac products may indeed exceed the 1Gb barrier - and certainly in that case the suggestion you made about having both GigE ports have PoE makes good sense. Remember though that if you load-balance PoE through two ports -that may sound attractive - but it does increase the cost of the AP and so you end up paying for PoE one way or the other.

If you don't mind sharing, I would be curious to know what switches you have in your network (Data as well as PoE) if you don't mind sharing. Are you using PoE injectors at this time for AP's or one of the PoE switches?

Having said all this - there are two different aspects
1. How much BW do you need from the AP back to the switch? In many/most real world circumstances you need less than 1G for foreseeable future. However Gen 2 - in demo mode - or to demonstrate performance - can/will exceed 1G - but hard to know a real case where it would do so. Why? Because Gen2 802.11ac will likely be deployed (and I'm starting to look at my crystal ball here) in high density environments with lots of mobile devices - because Gen 2 offers MU-MIMO (multi-user MIMO). This allows the 802.11ac to talk to multiple clients. Very likely these clients are going to be single stream 802.11ac or dual stream 802.11ac -- so again in this case, factoring the overhead of having two clients transmit at the same time and so on - the real BW coming back to the AP should in "most" cases be less than 1G.

If it is more than 1G -then I wonder if they access patterns are internal to the network or out to the WAN. IF they are out to the WAN - the network has to solve the WAN bottleneck. If they are within the network - it would still need to make sure that the internal network infrastructure as well as servers that the clients are accessing are capable of providing the required performance.

Anoop
Photo of Brian Powers

Brian Powers, Champ

  • 396 Posts
  • 92 Reply Likes
Not speaking of future hardware, but the current dual NIC devices (320/340 and 330/350) do not support PoE but on the eth0 port anyways do they? So unless something changes there, the only way to ensure high availability would be an injector or equivalent as well as a PoE switch port for the eth0.

Andrew has a good post about mesh network performance impact here and another from Keith Parsons here

I'd think both would be valid in trying to "guestimate" the throughput on the "root" AP of a mesh network even when speaking of 802.11ac.
Photo of Brian Ambler

Brian Ambler

  • 245 Posts
  • 126 Reply Likes
Just one small correction, the AP340 does have two PoE capable Ethernet ports (for more information the AP340 datasheet can be found here). Otherwise, Brian is correct, the AP320/330/350 only have one PoE capable Ethernet port which is Eth0.
Photo of Vincent Low

Vincent Low

  • 7 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
So these switches can't use LACP?

"Link aggregation" is one of it's features, but there is no documentation on the details. I am trying to make this work with an HP Switch.

HP's trunking/etherchanneling option is:
trunk Do not use any protocol to create or maintain the trunk.
lacp Use IEEE 802.3ad Link Aggregation protocol.
Photo of Anoop Dawar

Anoop Dawar

  • 26 Posts
  • 16 Reply Likes
Vincent

These switches do not implement LACP today. If you want to make it work with an HP Switch -use the "trunk - Do not use any protocol to create or maintain the trunk" option.

Anoop
Photo of Nick Lowe

Nick Lowe, Official Rep

  • 2491 Posts
  • 451 Reply Likes
And the HP switch runs Comware, you're looking for bridge aggregation.
Photo of The Dog

The Dog

  • 9 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Any word on LACP support? i have a NAS that uses LACP i would love to get bonded.
Photo of Stefan van der Wal

Stefan van der Wal, Champ

  • 70 Posts
  • 24 Reply Likes
Let's give this another bump then, is there any news on LACP? I'm starting to get questions from endusers who use mainly Junipers without Etherchannel support.
Photo of The Dog

The Dog

  • 9 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
I second this.
Photo of The Dog

The Dog

  • 9 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Just a bump here for LACP support.  A lot of devices out there use this including some of ours.  This would be very beneficial on ur SAN.
Photo of BJ

BJ, Champ

  • 374 Posts
  • 45 Reply Likes
Another bump
Photo of Daniel

Daniel

  • 14 Posts
  • 4 Reply Likes
Thank you folks, your input is greatly appreciated!

Unfortunately I can't comment on future items on this forum, so let's just say that the message was received loud and clear... and keep the comments/bumps coming.

For more details, you can always reach out to your account team so we can arrange a roadmap presentation under NDA.

Thanks,
Daniel.
Photo of Eric Duesterhaus

Eric Duesterhaus

  • 15 Posts
  • 5 Reply Likes
Still patiently waiting for LACP support. BUMP!
Photo of Carsten Buchenau

Carsten Buchenau, Champ

  • 356 Posts
  • 117 Reply Likes
A customer of us who is using AH Access Points already just told us that they have decided against AH Switches - and one of the 3 deciding points was the lack of LACP.

Any news on the implementation? According to this thread, "LACP is certainly very high on our list to do" (May 20 2013)...

BUMP!
Photo of The Dog

The Dog

  • 9 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
For us at our company we love our aerohive APs but this is why our 500,000 switching layer upgrade just went to juniper.