Concerning switch design - will it be possible to enable link aggregation aka bonding for at least one client?
Kind regards,
ssdnvv
Concerning switch design - will it be possible to enable link aggregation aka bonding for at least one client?
Kind regards,
ssdnvv
Sorry but LACP is not supported. Otherwise connection between switch chip and CPU is only 1Gbit/s. So max. switching and routing speed will be 1Gbit/s
I’m interested in bonding, too.
Can someone say what switch chip is used?
I read that the switch is connected to the CPU via two gigabit ethernet lines.
If the switch supports bonding, or trunking like it is often known as (not at Cisco), it would be possible to use one trunk between CPU and switch, and another between switch and client.
As per openwrt wiki, the older Turris router has a Qualcomm QCA8337N switch chip.
A datasheet (found with google) says this one should support trunking (probably without LACP).
It is a Marvell switch.
Half-knowledge and advanced hacking ahead:
If i remember correctly the next best thing should be teaming. If you take into account that you have the added latency of a switch this could work at least with the dsa driver for the switch and a bit of configuration. One CPU port exclusive for the first LAN port and one CPU port shared between the second port for the team and the other LAN ports. Priority should be on first port and second port should only get overflow.
Alternative: use WAN and one LAN port as team and repurpose one LAN port as WAN. This will share WAN and other LAN devices.
Alternate option: add a 2.5 Gbit/s network card using one of the miniPCIe-Slots. 2.5 Gbits for the SFP is imho not possible because of some design limitation but i am not sure.
One question remains: where should the 200 MBytes per second come frome and go to?
Hello
i would be curiose too for this feature
have a nice day
vinc
Perhaps bonding is a relict of the past - I’ve just read an article about NBase-T-standardisation as 802.3bz.
PCIe-Cards for the PC-/server-side connection are already there (Germany: http://www.tragant.de/mail/presse/21_16/21_16_home.html, USA/Canada: https://www.startech.com/Networking-IO/Adapter-Cards/5-speed-pcie-nic~ST10GSPEXNB), what we need is a miniPCIe-NBase-T card to connect a 1/2.5/5/10GBE-machine to our router…
Then we will have:
Be sure to also take a look at MCTCP.
@adminX: Speaking about speeds this would be a ordinary scenario (in the near future):
Even Marvell only describes how to set the board to 2.5 Gbps. As IEEE 802.3bz is just ratified we may have to wait a bit until modules become available.
http://www.aquantia.com/2016/08/17/aquantia-announces-industrys-first-sfp-line-products-enabling-connectivity-2-5-5-10gbase-t-networking/ says Q4 2016 for production release.
One question will be if this works or not. Technical capability of the SoC and all needed connections still do not ensure it will work. Someone will have to take the risk of early adopters and test if this works or not.
If that module you linked to worked and one would reorganize a LAN-port to act as WAN (as in that case the WAN-port would be disabled) we would unfortunately be forced to use an external fibre-modem. But that would only bother those users living in contries that leave the user option to buy their own modems (eg Germany, USA).
But in my eyes that would be a really small flaw - the possibility of using the SFP±port for a fast connection would be really great
Just being curious: Would it be possible to use a mini-PCIe to PCIe-adapter to connect a PCIe-card? Because it seems not really likely there will come a mini-PCIe-NBase-T-card…
Should be possible and may even be cheaper than the SFP+ module but also looks sometimes a bit ugly. A version with case may look better. Testing with some per-owned PCIe card may minimize the cost to check if it really works.
I think one just needs to be patient atm. It needs some time for the standard to get adopted and for per-owned devices to appear.
There are mini-PCIe-to-PCIe-adapter-cards available for 1GBE for mini-itx boards so there might some similiar cards get developed atm for NBase-T.
Possible connections atm would be:
@adminX: What price do you assume the SFP±modules might cost?
Out of the dark i would say the SFP+ modules will cost twice the price compared to PCIe cards and you still have the risk of having nothing.
Trying to find a PCIe network card capable of 2.5GBps SFP+ might be simpler. Connection could then be tried with any of the already available fibre modules or with a SFP link cable.
In the end we won’t know if any of this works as expected until someone takes the risk of losing some money and having some hard time with configuration and kernel development.
[details=My way and off topic]I may go the fibre route and try with some modules. Seems the simplest way as network cards with Linux drivers should be available and SFP+ fibre modules work also on 4GBps Fibre Channel.
Nothing will happen in the near future as there are other things to do:
There is zero overhead. USB3 cables are used because they are cheap and work.
@adminX: Did you already try your fibre route-way?
Well… it won’t work as the mini-PCIe-connector is only PCIe v.1 x1 and therefore only 1GB.
Another thought:
what about this card: https://www.amazon.de/Informatique-CONTROLEUR-MiniPCIe-2-Ports-Ethernet-Dual/dp/B01NBRA4IX/
Its chip supports 2,5Gbit, so it would make up a standalone-LACP-solution? But searching for RTL811 already gives me the hint that the driver is not opensource and therefore has to be built on our own.
Other solutions would be adding one single 1GB-Ethernet-Port:
Best,
ssdnvv
Has anyone yet managed to connect TO faster than 1 GbE?