Comware

 View Only
last person joined: yesterday 

Expand all | Collapse all

4 interfaces aggregate in HP5520

This thread has been viewed 16 times
  • 1.  4 interfaces aggregate in HP5520

    Posted Jul 08, 2024 02:23 PM

    Hello all,

    I have 4 HP5520 (R8M27A), we stacked the 4 switchs using IRF works fine. We wanted to interconnect with another switch same logic 4 members :

    The four interfaces are up but cant understand why only 2 seems to be up in the aggregate (speed stay at 2G)  :

    BAGG2                UP   2G(a)   F(a)   T    1    To Switch1
    GE1/0/24             UP   1G(a)   F(a)   T    1    To Switch1-1/24
    GE2/0/24             UP   1G(a)   F(a)   T    1    To Switch1-2/24
    GE3/0/24             UP   1G(a)   F(a)   T    1    To Switch1-3/24
    GE4/0/24             UP   1G(a)   F(a)   T    1    To Switch1-4/24

    Here the configuration used (same for 3/0/24 & 4/0/24)  :

    interface Bridge-Aggregation2
     description To BAG-Switch1
     port link-type trunk
     undo port trunk permit vlan 1
     port trunk permit vlan XXX XXX XX
     link-aggregation mode dynamic
     stp tc-restriction
     dhcp snooping trust

    interface GigabitEthernet1/0/24
     port link-mode bridge
     description To Switch1-1/24
     port link-type trunk
     undo port trunk permit vlan 1
     port trunk permit vlan XXX XXX XX
     combo enable auto
     stp tc-restriction
     port link-aggregation group 2
     dhcp snooping trust

    interface GigabitEthernet2/0/24
     port link-mode bridge
     description Vers To Switch1-2/24          
     port link-type trunk
     undo port trunk permit vlan 1
     port trunk permit vlan XXX XXX XX
     combo enable auto
     stp tc-restriction
     port link-aggregation group 2
     dhcp snooping trust

    Only 2/0/24 & 4/0/24 seems active in the BAG2, when i disconnect both. Interface 3/0/24 go up and active the BAG2 have a speed of one even if two interfaces are still active when i disconnect 3/0/24 then 1/0/24 go active and the BAG speed stay at 1G : 

     IFNET/3/PHY_UPDOWN: Physical state on the interface GigabitEthernet2/0/24 changed to down.
     IFNET/5/LINK_UPDOWN: Line protocol state on the interface GigabitEthernet2/0/24 changed to down.
     LAGG/6/LAGG_ACTIVE: Member port GE3/0/24 of aggregation group BAGG2 changed to the active state.
     LAGG/6/LAGG_INACTIVE_IFCFG_DEFAULT: Member port GE4/0/24 of aggregation group BAGG2 changed to the inactive state, because no LACPDU was received by the reference port.
     IFNET/3/PHY_UPDOWN: Physical state on the interface GigabitEthernet4/0/24 changed to down.
     IFNET/5/LINK_UPDOWN: Line protocol state on the interface GigabitEthernet4/0/24 changed to down.
     IFNET/5/LINK_UPDOWN: Line protocol state on the interface GigabitEthernet3/0/24 changed to up.

    BAGG2                UP   1G(a)   F(a)   T    1    To Switch1
    GE1/0/24             UP   1G(a)   F(a)   T    1    To Switch1-1/24
    GE3/0/24             UP   1G(a)   F(a)   T    1    To Switch1-1/24

    My question is why is it not possible to have the 4 interfaces up in the BAGG2 ? i never managed to have the BAGG2 with a speed of 4G.

    Thanks i advance for your help.



  • 2.  RE: 4 interfaces aggregate in HP5520

    MVP GURU
    Posted Jul 09, 2024 04:12 AM
    Hi, it would be benefical to help you to diagnose this issue to see the relevant four ports Links Aggregation configuration on the Switch1 side (the IRF's peer). Apparently - as far as we can see with the details you provided -  the IRF's BAGG side looks good, I mean the BAGG2 looks well formed with four totally identical physical member interfaces aggregated together (4x1Gbps means an "aggregated" bandwidth of 4Gbps)





  • 3.  RE: 4 interfaces aggregate in HP5520

    Posted Jul 09, 2024 04:24 AM

    Hi 

    Please post the result of the following command :

    display link-agg verbose bridge2



    ------------------------------
    Frederic
    (kudos welcome)
    ------------------------------



  • 4.  RE: 4 interfaces aggregate in HP5520

    Posted Jul 18, 2024 10:01 AM

    @Nomadnet9 : did you came through with this problem ? You did not post the informations needed to help you...



    ------------------------------
    Frederic
    (kudos welcome)
    ------------------------------