Web and Unmanaged
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

HP 1820 Static LACP Inqure

 
franco093
Occasional Visitor

HP 1820 Static LACP Inqure

Hello, 

I want to confirm if this is possible as based on the reading I did, this should not be possible or I am understanding this incorrectly. 

I currently have one HP 1820 48G switch setup up and connecting to two core switches that are 1920S. 

Both of these cores switches are connected to one firewall. 

The HP 1820 48G I have configured port 47 and 48 LACP Static and connecting port 47 to one switch and port 48 to another switch (Just to test and see if this acually works) 

I am able to connect two seperate switches and have it load balance all traffic comming from the access switch to these two cores. 

 

Upon testing it does appear that this conifguration seems to work. I know LACP is suppose to be used between another switch, but it is standard practice to have it connected to 2 switches from on truck? 

 

I linked to the drawing for a better understanding on this. 

https://imgur.com/Nwc3Q4m

 

Thanks

 

 

1 REPLY 1
parnassus
Honored Contributor

Re: HP 1820 Static LACP Inqure

That's wrong. Port Trunking (Ports aggregation) - LACP or Non Protocol, it doesn't matter - requires - and that is mandatory - that member links are coterminus into the very same (physical or logical) switch...you have two 1920S which can't form any type of virtual stack together (No VSF, no IRF, no VSX, no backplane stacking capability)...so the design, from the 1820's Port Trunking standpoint, is incorrect...you can deploy it but results are not what you think they should.

Are you really sure that 1820's Link Aggregation Group (LACP) both member links are (or will be) synched, distributing and aggregated with peer links on remote switches?