I have an RB2011 and was wondering what the difference between the following two methods was. Is one better than the other?
The goal is to add all “LAN” interfaces to a single bridge.
I am using WinBox not command line.
Method 1
Create a bridge called “LAN”
Assign interfaces 3-5 as a slave of interface 2, assign interfaces 7-10 as a slave of interface 6
In Bridge → Ports assign Interface 2 and 6 to the “LAN” bridge
Method 2
Create a bridge called “LAN”
In Bridge → Ports assign Interfaces 2-10 to the bridge
Is one of the methods above better than the other?
I believe the two options cause the physical switches to behave differently, and this can cause the CPU to be eaten up? I am not sure on that. If someone could clarify this and if a better solution exists, let me know.
There is no answer to this question on that link BartoszP. Question of the poster was not about switch IC capability.
@ukzerosniper: I would choose method 1, as if there is communication between one switch IC, it will handled by HW. SW bridge will be only needed between ICs.
IF you need more speed between two device, put it on same switch group.
Obviously the switch group are
1: 10/100/1000 group: ether1~ether5 + sfp1
and
2: 10/100 group: ether6~ether10
The speed between two device on the same group is like the two devices are directly connected to the other without RouterBOARD between.
Obviously put gigabit devices on group 1, and devices with only ethernet 10/100 to group 2.
If you leave disabled “use ip firewall” and leave enabled “fast path” on bridge, the sum of the speed between “all the devices on group 1” and “all device on group 2” can reach 500Mbit max on single direction, considering both direction you can reach 1Gbit,
because from gigabit switch chip and the CPU the link work at 1000Mbit for each direction (total 2Gbit), like another gigabit port, but on 10/100 ethernet side are presents only 5 ports and obviously 100 * 5 = 500Mbit max (total of both direction: 1Gbit).