I have a BPG/Shaper with 2 interfaces configured in Bond0 (Loadbalance-RoundRobin)then connect one to each switch (one in Red one in Blue).

ESXI is the same thing, 2 interfaces in one vSwitch NIC Teaming policy (Route based on the originating port ID) , then conect one to each switch (one in Red one in Blue).

enter image description here

In this scenario i have 50% of packet looses, because the NIC Teaming policy is "Routed based on the originating virtual port ID", when they choose one vmnic, the traffic always remains on the same board. I believe that if I connect a cable between Switches, I will solve my problem, but if the switch to stop working but continue leading link, the beacon probing (Network Failover Detection) had detected the problem? Do I need to have the spanning tree active?

In summary, based on the above image, how do you advise me to use Bound and NIC teaming policies in my environment so that I have redundancy at all?

  • 2
    What makes you think you can? What make/model are your switches and are they combined in some way to allow for shared MAC/CAM tables such as Cisco's VSS? – Chopper3 Apr 12 '18 at 15:24
  • They are HP A5120 switches, only with STP configured, I am currently without the RED Switch on the network because of the issue mentioned above. My idea is to create a redundant and balanced environment. I'm in doubt on how to ride it. As explained above, I have a router for the internet and I want this environment to be redundant, because in Linux I already have redundancy. – Luiz Fernando Marques Apr 12 '18 at 16:30
  • 1
    If you have totally separate switches without knowledge of each other then it's quite common to have 'MAC-flapping' scenarios as perhaps you're seeing - the most fool-proof option is simply to set your vSwitches to using specified Active and Passive links, this works great and doesn't confuse the switches - obviously you don't benefit from the two links but most of the time people don't really need/want that anyway. Simple is usually best/most-robust. – Chopper3 Apr 12 '18 at 16:50

VMware standard vSwitches don't do bonding, this is a common misconception. Also, vSwitches never forward received frames back out of a physical link, so there's no need for STP (doesn't hurt though). So firstly, forget LAG.

You're describing "Routed based on the originating virtual port ID" correctly: a specific vNIC will always stay on the same switch port unless there's a failover.

Judging from your scenario, this isn't too bad. You could assign your physical host NICs to a vSwitch, create two port groups - one primarily using the first port with the second port as failover, the other vice versa - and assign two vNICs to each VM instance, each one connected to one of the port groups.

Then, when you load balance across all those vNICs the traffic should even out. Alternatively, you could of course use only a single vNIC per VM and distribute them evenly to the port groups.

If both switches are used for the same VLAN/subnet they need to be able to talk to each other - unless the shaper bridges, you need a connection between them.

When using different VLANs/subnets you might want to connect them by router - but then the failover scenario outlined above won't work

The problem you're experiencing probably originates from the shaper: if there's no clear subnet division (or equivalent) between the blue and the red segment it's quite possible that the shaper chooses the wrong egress port and the frame can never reach the correct port. Note that if the shaper can't use the desired port you'd get (mostly undesired) traffic between both switches).

It might not be the most straight-forward thing but I wouldn't connect the switches and go with two subnets. This makes sure the shaper is using the correct egress port. In case of a switch failure half your bandwidth will be gone anyway, so you could very well let that be felt by the VMs - so: two port groups with one physical NIC each, no failover. For administrating the hosts and VMs, just use a third port group with its own VLAN ID that does have failover in the vSwitch.

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.