I'm trying to figure out if the approach I'm going to explain its okay or if its there a better way of doing it or if this could lead to performance or unexpected issues.
I have a CCR1009 connected to a Cisco SG550X switch using a Bonding (2GE interfaces bonded on 802.3ad mode) , however the bandwidth requirements has increased in the last weeks so I need to put to work a 10Gbps SFP+ interface but still need to have some redundancy leaving the SFP+ as main interface but the CCR1009 only has 1 single SFP+ interface.
Initially was thinking about adding the SFP+ to the same bridge where the current bond its and share the tagged VLANs across both the SFP+ and the Bond interface however this doesn't work well, with all interfaces UP I have communication but once the SFP+ goes down it takes almost 1 minute to fallback to the Bond and once SFP+ is back it takes another minute to restore communication.
So I thought about having the current bond as slave in another bond interface having the SFP+ and Bond as slaves and using the mode active / backup with SFP+ being the primary. So far it works well and the link survives when any the SFP+ or slave bond interfaces goes down and then restores successfully when the interface is back but I'm not sure if this configuration could lead to any unexpected issue like ARP issues so any idea or recommendation for this approach will be highly appreciated
This is the configuration I'm testing:
Code: Select all
/interface bonding
add mode=802.3ad name=ETH_bonding slaves=ether1,ether2 \
transmit-hash-policy=layer-3-and-4
add mode=active-backup name=TRUNK_bonding primary=sfp-sfpplus1 slaves=sfp-sfpplus1,ETH_bonding