Suggestions? Multi-Station bridge with link aggregation...

[tronax]

Hi,

We have six PowerStation 2 units (all runnign AirOS 3.2) and are trying to set up a point to point site link, using link aggregation to get the speed up. The networks have to be seamlessly bridged, so that equipment can be moved from one site to the other without making any configuration changes.

We have a couple linksys SRW208P switches, one for each end of the link, with the first few 100Mbps ports setup with LACP, and the gig port is setup as an uplink. That works fine in testing (using direct cabling instead of the radio link), and when I create multiple data streams I'm getting nearly 300 Mbps out of the 3x 100 Mbps links (which is exactly what I'd hoped for)


If we setup just two PowerStations, one on each end - things seem ok.
One is setup as a WDS access point, the other as a WDS station.
(same ssid, etc)

When I add a second set of PowerStations, the link aggregation doesn't seem to work. The second set of PowerStations don't seem to talk, although if I setup ONLY the second set, they seem to be ok.
For the second (and third) sets of PowerStations I use a second (and third) unique SSID, and different channels. For example, set 1 is channel 2 SSID SSID1, set 2 is channel 6 SSID SSID2, and set 3 is channel 10 SSID SSID3....

I thought that would work, but I must be missing something.
I've tried monkeying with all sorts of settings, but I have yet to see two sets of antennas work at the same time in close proximity.


So, any advice?


Thanks in advance!!

[UBNT-Mike.Ford]

Hello Tronax,

I shot this over to my software team.

Thanks,

MIke

[UBNT-keba]

For me it seems that you are making network loop.
Is it the connection you use?

H|-------PS2------PS2-----|H
U|-------PS2------PS2-----|U
B|-------PS2------PS2-----|B

[InoX]

You can't make a loop with a managed switch...I mean it has STP/RSTP

[jmd442]

What he is saying is one end you have a switch setup for link aggregation in wired mode you get the 100m per port. So the aggregation is working correctly. He is bridging two networks broadcasting from one set of 3 in one building to another set of 3 in another building in aggrigated mode theoreticly it should work but when you have more than one radio in link aggregation it cuts the transmission rate in half. There should be no loop in that scenario.

[UBNT-Mike.Ford]

Hey Tronaks,

Can you get up some packet captures over the link? Its possible that the link state protocol is bieng dropped by our units over multiple links like that and a packet capture would go a long way to help alleviate this problem.

Thanks,

Mike

[UBNT-Mike.Taylor]

Tronaks,

LACP protocol operates at layer 2 between ports on switches. It must therefore use link local broadcast addresses and those layer 2 LLC protocols are not "leaked" beyond the immediate physical segment.

In other words, the Linksys is attempting to aggregate across the Linux bridge devices on the PS2 units. These units are not responding to LACP or reporting with CDP as per the Cisco guidelines (http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/ios/12_2sb/feature/guide/gigeth.html#wp1094582).

So, it is almost certain that these frames are dropped just as STP frames are dropped at the first non-STP enabled router they hit.

Your fallback according to Cisco's documentation is hot standby. All three links are there, but there's no "bonding" or "aggregation" for load balancing going on. In order to make that work properly they obviously need a guy on the other end providing feedback...

If you can provide the packet traces maybe we can think of a way to make our wireless bridge a little more transparent to this protocol using ebtables/arptables/iptables/etc...

Thanks,

Mike

[tronax]

Thanks for the info, Mike.

How do you recommend getting a packet trace?
I mean, since it's not working, I'm not sure what to do or what/where to log....

Is it not possible for the Powerstation to forward those frames? I figured a "transparent bridge" would actually forward all packets...

[tronax]

What about using MSTP?

....or will those packets be dropped because they're layer 2 as well?

[Headbang]

I have done similar for big bandwidth building to building links. I used 2 Mikrotik RB450's in the last one for the bonding. Nice and cheap solution.

[Sash]

we have a similar topic here
http://forum.ubnt.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5591

dd-wrt can handle link aggregation/fault tolerance/duplex/bonding

eg avila gateworks w. ddwrt and 4x xr5 in turbo mode can aggregate 4x up to 70mbit (4x 108mbit)

[Airwip]

we have a similar topic here
http://forum.ubnt.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5591

dd-wrt can handle link aggregation/fault tolerance/duplex/bonding

eg avila gateworks w. ddwrt and 4x xr5 in turbo mode can aggregate 4x up to 70mbit (4x 108mbit)
yes in the lab ore on desk but in real world puu.. man :roll:
edit: i feel a little bit anoyed about guy from from dd-wrt team atvertise here
there produkts.

IN DEUTSCH:
Habt ihr es so nötig euer zeug in anderen foren zu bewerben..ich finde das
befremdlich ..sorry sash und sebastian ihr leisted gute Arbeit aber was ihr
so in letzter zeit so macht gefällt nicht jedem .

[mohave_steve]

Oops... Posted to wrong thread..

[mohave_steve]

....

[Sash]

eg avila gateworks w. ddwrt and 4x xr5 in turbo mode can aggregate 4x up to 70mbit (4x 108mbit)

the 4x70mbit is a outdoor real world experience ...under very good conditions of cause

[Sash]

eg avila gateworks w. ddwrt and 4x xr5 in turbo mode can aggregate 4x up to 70mbit (4x 108mbit)

the 4x70mbit is a outdoor real world experience ...under very good conditions of cause

[rconaway]

How about using a pair of Pepwave 210 routers? They do load-balancing and fail-over. I know it's an $1000 solution to the problem but there may be other equipment that is a lot less.

[Demeo]

For the second (and third) sets of PowerStations I use a second (and third) unique SSID, and different channels. For example, set 1 is channel 2 SSID SSID1, set 2 is channel 6 SSID SSID2, and set 3 is channel 10 SSID SSID3....



I have tried to make this, but at home. You need 2 pairs (3 - gives less throuput i don't know why) of PowerStations (or NS, or other) operating as bridges (not routers) and Mikrotik device (or RouterOS) at each side of link. Next each link must be in other subnetwork. 1 pair something like 10.0.1.0, other pair like 10.0.2.0. Then you can make EoIP tunnel in RouterOS and use bonding...

I don't remember test throuput results, but that was working in duplex. So you can make over 22 Mbits/seс in duplex (teoretically), according to you radios of course.

Link to possible solution (http://wiki.mikrotik.com/wiki/Bonding_Examples)

Waiting for your reply with testing results :D

[InoX]

forum problems

[InoX]

For the second (and third) sets of PowerStations I use a second (and third) unique SSID, and different channels. For example, set 1 is channel 2 SSID SSID1, set 2 is channel 6 SSID SSID2, and set 3 is channel 10 SSID SSID3....



I have tried to make this, but at home. You need 2 pairs (3 - gives less throuput i don't know why) of PowerStations (or NS, or other) operating as bridges (not routers) and Mikrotik device (or RouterOS) at each side of link. Next each link must be in other subnetwork. 1 pair something like 10.0.1.0, other pair like 10.0.2.0. Then you can make EoIP tunnel in RouterOS and use bonding...

I don't remember test throuput results, but that was working in duplex. So you can make over 22 Mbits/seс in duplex (teoretically), according to you radios of course.

Link to possible solution (http://wiki.mikrotik.com/wiki/Bonding_Examples)

Waiting for your reply with testing results :D
So it's cheaper and faster to use 2xRB433...anyway a link with just one radio on every side with RB411 is faster than bonding two NS. With 2xNS(per side) you will have max 40-45mbps and with one RB411 you can have ~55-70mbps. So I don't understand you guys.