On 07/30/07 15:12, Ralf Gross wrote:
I've tried bonding before. But this didn't work either because the cisco switch decides on a src/dst mac/ip hash which port of the port channel will be used. But in my case the hash is always the same because between host A and host B. Thus always the same interface was used.
Dough! So the switch is failing you.
But not between host A and host B. I've gone through this a while ago, everyone told me than that I've to solve the problem on L3 ;)
*SIGH*
I think it's not possible with the Cisco switches we use here to increase the bandwidth between 2 hosts on L2.
It sounds like a "per packet" or "per flow" decision that is defaulting to "per flow" for deciding which port on an EtherChannel to use.
I'm not that much of a Cisco person so I can't say for sure, but I'd think there would be a setting that could be changed in the switch that would alter this so that you could get an aggregate bandwidth increase.
Doing a quick Google search (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Cisco+CEF&btnG=Google+Search) reminded me that we had to turn on Cisco Express Forwarding (a.k.a. CEF) and set the CEF to be "per packet" rather than "per flow". You might want to do some research on your switches to see if they support CEF or not. If your switches do support it you may want to talk to your switch support staff (if it is not your self) to see if they would consider setting such up.
I am presently using CEF between a 3640 and an upstream 7204-ubr to load balance ethernet connections (bridged to SDSL) and am getting an aggregate bandwidth increase in "per packet" fashion. So, this will work between routers and I believe switches that support it.
Good luck. Let me know if there is any thing else that I can do to help. Grant. . . . _______________________________________________ LARTC mailing list LARTC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc
