Hey y 'all, Link aggregation I Have a router that supports link aggregation (2 ports) Here ...

[G+_Hagos Rush]

Hey y'all,

 

Link aggregation.

I Have a router that supports link aggregation (2 ports).

 

Here is what I want to do and tell me if this makes sense or if I truly am just crazy (very possible).

 

I want to purchase the Netgear managed switch linked below in order to:

 

1. Aggregate from Router to Switch

2. Aggregate Mac Pro

3. Aggregate NAS (four ports) - I am using it as a time machine backup for multiple machines, Plex, and general data storage

 

Keep in mind I don't know what is possible vs not possible. I know networking but some of you guys know it better.

 

a. Is it worth getting a managed switch?

b. Is it too much work (I enjoy networking honestly - its weird)

 

c. VLAN's ughhhhh so excited to try this out

 

Is this a good switch? 2800+ reviews 4.5/5

https://www.amazon.com/NETGEAR-JGS524Ev2-Rackmount-Lifetime-Replacement/dp/B00GG1AD9A/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1491922400&sr=8-4&keywords=link+aggregation+gigabit+switch

[G+_Travis Hershberger]

Link aggregation can be very worthwhile. I use it at work between switches, but don't have it configured for any endpoint. It allows me to use 1gb switches and not see major networks slowdowns from the users point of view. 2, 1Gb links between each switch.

 

A. Yes, managed switches aren't any more expensive than dumb switches. Full managed switches still cost a LOT, but don't provide many more features than the managed type.

B. It doesn't have to be any work, you can just plug in and power up like any dumb switch.

C. VLANs can be good things, just keep in mind that they are really not much of a security measure.

 

I'd buy that switch.

[G+_Keith Mallett]

Link aggregation was intended to create a larger tunnel between layer 2 devices such as two switches that are separated between floors or offices; not access devices such as computers or consumer nas storage devices. The access device would get more value out of nic teaming.

 

Your router is probably a consumer grade device so it is both a layer 3 router and a layer 2 switch. Most won't support link aggregation but check your documentation to be sure.

 

Most of my experience with managed switches has been on cisco or d-link equipment but netgear is probably as good as the d-link. Yes you can get a lot of value out of a managed device even in a home environment (especially if you want to turn the port the xbox is on to get the kids off it).

 

V-lan also has a place but take it slow as this can confusing quickly if you don't have any network training. You can find lots of uses for v-lanning even in a home environment once you get a handle on it.

 

I recommend you consider adding a Ubiquity EdgeX router to your lab. Cheap and very powerful.

[G+_Hagos Rush]

+Keith Mallett thanks for the response. My router does have 2 ports that I can turn on for link aggregation. I have had the beginnings of Cisco network training and been a network enthusiast since.

 

That being said VLANs are very new to me and that...I am sure I will break multiple times before getting it right haha. So I don't know everything henceforth my questions ?

 

I have two kids so shutting down the internet will be a huge +.

 

The ubiquity looks wonderful. I do however need more ports. I will be aggregating 8 ports. The price is..."well that escalated quickly" for that 8 port. I am surprised that the 3 port PoE is so cheap though...$49? Great buy

 

While PoE is a nice thing to have literally nothing I have can even utilize it so that's not a huge thing for me.

 

I'll look into NIC teaming. That's my new learn for research later tonight.

[G+_Keith Mallett]

That's great! Ok remember the basic three levels of the network.. core, distribution and access.

 

While link aggregation can be applied at any level, it was really intended for the distribution layer. It bundles together multiple ports as a single channel, however actual through put of a single device is restricted to a single port. This means that the device using the channel is assigned to a port and uses it not all of the ports. The goal of aggregation is to create a larger tunnel between devices on the distribution layer, so more than one device can use the channel at the same time. Think of it this way - two switches connected together by one port on each is like a single lane highway. Each car can go at the max speed limit but the more cars (computers) using the highway cause congestion. Link aggregation creates a multi lane highway but you can still only go the max speed limit. The speed limit doesn't get multiplied,r rather the number of cars using it increases without congestion.

 

Your router is actually acting on all three levels so I would suggest you tackle it in pieces so you get the most out of what your making. Nothing wrong with creating a link but you need to know what you're going to get out of it. It the goal is to increase Internet access you won't see a performance increase. If you are streaming files from one pc or server to two computers on the other end of the link,yes you will see a reduction in latency.

 

I only suggested the ubiquity router as a the core level only device. I suggest you consider one and move the is modem connect to it. Then you can have 4 networks that you can set up any way you want. They can talk or be isolated.

 

Remember one last thing, throughput on any access device will be restricted to the slowest link in the chain. So it will go like this:

 

Nic on the computer - 1gig

Nic on the switch -1gig

Etherchannel - 1 gig

Nic on the router - 1gig

(As long as it's a gig router)

ISP connection - 100meg

(Or whatever your ISP is providing)

 

The reason the price on devices climbs fast when you add network services like link aggregation is because of the processors and chipset.

 

Hope that helps.

Have fun and share your work.

[G+_Hagos Rush]

Keith Mallett dude his helps tremendously. I didn't even think about separating networks. And now the ubiquity makes all the sense in he world.

 

Seriously thanks for the words of advice. It really has helped. Once I figure out what the heck I want to do I will share the results. ?

[G+_Keith Mallett]

Glad to be of help.

[G+_Keith Mallett]

Oh Hagos Rush? don't forget to incorporate nic teaming on your workstations.

[G+_Hagos Rush]

Okay so update...I have scrapped all the hardware Keith Mallett I just spoke with a friend who basically convinced me that ubiquity is the way to go, he's running it in his house and his throughput and network is ridiculous. And from all the research I've been doing...O M G. So I'm going to get the ubiquity managed 24 NON PoE managed switch and probably the 8(4 PoE) port 60w switch to add stuff such as access points

 

I'll also throw in the unifi security hardware as I have been looking for it

[G+_Hagos Rush]

Keith Mallett and no I have not forgotten about NIC teaming

[G+_Hagos Rush]

+Keith Mallett

 

So after much deliberation I went with the Ubiquiti 24 port switch (non PoE) and the USG (Security Gateway). I set everything up. My first impressions are "it's cool". I'm not necessarily used to how it handles everything from within the software, such as assigning static IP's. my brain is wired to go to the DHCP Server USG in this place which was not the case.

 

The software in my opinion, as tiny as it may be is not very intuitive. Looking for things are generally not where I thought they would be. It is taking some getting used to.

 

I also wish the app had more options to do things. But all of this can be updated. What the software does is amazing. Adopting both products into each other was stupid, and I mean almost too easy. This part was superb. Gateway saw another product and it was all part of the family.

 

VLAN - still figuring this out. Created a few different networks. VPN, Guests, Internal (for all network hardware - switches and access points), and the default network which I am using for all the other stuff I own -

 

when creating a VLAN does it not reassign the IP? For example the software was showing the original IP 168.192 for example but when you clicked for further info it showed the new IP of 169.193 - Also the hardware (Mac mini) did not change its IP even after DHCP release. Is this normal?

 

Lastly - VPN? This took two too many steps. I am still trying to figure out how to create users for my VPN - when I watch the internets other were able to create users...under a beta version (eye roll) - why is this not baked in already?

 

I cannot wait to buy our house and then add the access points the network. I may get one for the bedroom to add better coverage and to play with it as AC AP is $89 and 8 port PoE (on 4 powered) is $109.

 

I am okay with it but will be much happier once I figure out VPN's and VLAN's.