We have a link done with a couple of BH20s. Now the link is almost saturated, so we have to increase it’s capacity.
We’d like to simply install a second couple of BH20s. The problem is how to evenly distribute the traffic between the two links.
I know there are switches capable of binding two ports making it appear as a single, double bandwidth, port. But we use a CMMmicro, so we cannot use these switches…
Is there any other solution?
Thanks.
Not with a CMMmicro in there. You would need real switches.
Until 4/5 you can buy a TrangoLink45 for $2k and it wil give you more capacity than the two BH20’s together.
The Trango will run on the same POE as the BH20 so it’s as easy as config and mount.
We have a number of Trango radios and they are in my opinion the best value out there.
Jerry,
How much real world bandwidth do you get out of this unit?
Paul, PDMNet
giannici,
I curious to know what "switches capable of binding two ports making it appear as a single, double bandwidth, port."
Switches?
Paul,
We aren’t pushing them that hard - 8M/2M. They will do 45Mbps aggregate.
ridnet,
Cisco EtherChannel is a function that allows you to carry more traffic between two Cisco switches than a single port will allow. It requires cisco switches at both ends.
Jerry Richardson wrote: ridnet,
Cisco EtherChannel is a function that allows you to carry more traffic between two Cisco switches than a single port will allow. It requires cisco switches at both ends.
I have seen an analog feature in a Linksys managed switch...
Zyxel Layer 2 manage switches will also do Link Aggregation and accomplish this task. The simple ES-2108 is probably the simplest solution.
Looks like it’s not any Cisco switch, a simple 2950 will not do it.
http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/473/172.html
I was reading about this, does some have full example on how to do bandwidth aggregation using simple 2950 or 2960 Cisco switch?
What I have been reading requires a layer 3 type switch/router at the other end.
amd phreak, the link is for the product description, I would like to know how to configure 2 Cisco 2950 with enterprise IOS?
We have done this before but using more expensive equipment like Packetter, Peplink, and using Linux. I had no idea it could be done so simple.
We tried using 3com 3300XMs for this and found it flakey. didnt take much to confuse the switch on what links were up or down.
thats just my experience. May have just been the switches I was using
I have done it using Mikrotik & bonding, It was more of a temporary solution until the permanent back haul was installed, but seemed to work fine. This also works great for redundancy.
-----------------
| Mikrotik |
-----------------
| |
---------- ----------
| 900 sm | | 5.7 sm |
---------- ----------
| |
----------------
| Mikrotik |
----------------
|
-------------
| cmm |
-------------
| | |
---- ---- ----
|AP| |AP| |AP|
---- ---- ----
I see that you all are talking about two different thing one is bandwidth aggregation / load balancing and the other port backup or redundancy, backing up a port could be done with spanning tree or best case fast spanning tree.
The original subject is for bandwidth aggregation in the term of more speed using two channels/ports, it could be done but my observation is "I’ve never seen it done with switches, the 2948G-L3 software is more of a router Level 3.
If someone has an example of how it’s done ( bandwidth aggregation) / more speed I would like to see the configuration of how it’s done using Cisco 2950.
ISL is Cisco-specific for creating trunks between switches. dot1q (802.1q) is IEEE so you can create trunks between cisco and non cisco switches. 2950’s and above natively support dot1q trunks. I see no reason to use ISL anymore.
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/switche … #wp1043287
IMO I can screw around with various alternatives, or I can go with the one that is tried and true.
Cisco EtherChannel has been around a long time and works very well. Cisco 2924’s can be had for around 150 each. Here is a link with some good info:
http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/t … annel.html
Frankly in this case it would be cheaper to buy the Trango set than to get two switches, and the additional BH20 set and it would be a better upgrade.
on switch1.
interface Port-channel 1
ip address x.x.x.x 255.255.255.0
duplex full
speed 20
interface fastethernet <#1>
Channel-group 1 mode on
interface fastethernet <#2>
Channel-group 1 mode on
Similar configuration on peer switch also
I think it can be done with a 3 ethernet router(L3), or 2 switches (spanning tree)
or just put 2 ap with one bh20 and other 2 ap with the other bh20 phisicaly separately(2 switches).
But…I agree with Jerry try to put a bigger BH.
Jerry, have you used Motorola ptp400? compared with trango 45??
Have not done a comparison.
The PTP400 Lite is twice the price and 1/3 less bandwidth. I’m sure it a better radio and does things the Trango can’t do.
We select equipment based on it’s ability to do the job. In our situation the Trangos fit the bill nicely and have proven reliable.
I use both the PTP 400 and TrangoLink-45.
The Trango wins out in price and capacity. The Motorola is ahead in product refinement, feature set, and stability.
One example: Latest Trango firmware supports VLANs, but has a bug so the radio’s management interface does not respond to any traffic outside of its own subnet. So if your network is routed, don’t expect to be able to manage the radios if you’ve got a router hop between the radio and your workstation. Trango’s working on the problem (for the last 15 days)…
If you’re in a spectrum dense area be careful with the Trangos. Their filtering and co-channel emissions are not as good as the Motorolas. The Motorolas are happy to operate without much frequency separation next to a Canopy cluster and not stomp all over the adjacent spectrum. The Trangos- not so much so.
Can’t beat the performance per dollar though.
Well that was espected… so much price diference must be for a reason.
I have a ptp400 lite, integrated with no line of sigth and have 3 mbps simetrical, 4km
Very reliable.