Hi,

I have one hp microserver gen8 with nas4free embedded system, and configured lacp on it for the 2 gigabit ethernet nic, and also made it on the crs125g-1s-rm, created a bond with 2 interface and used L2 hash policy, but it is not working as expected. Uplink traffic is intermittend between 0 and 100 megabyte/s, downlink is stable 10 megabyte/s. It is very annoying behavior. Nas4free features are described there: http://www.zoonsweb.nl/wiki/doku.php?id ... r&s[]=lacp

You should use 802.3ad at both side. for me it works perfectly.

How can I set up interfaces? The wrong config is:
two ports are in bonding, hash policy layer 2, other values also default (of course no master port)
bonding set to bridge1, what contains ether1-master (other ifaces has ether1-master as master port)
nas4free side bge0 and bge1 in lagg0, and lagg is set to lacp

Anyone?

CRS = slow for cpu-forwarded traffic. Bonding is cpu-forwarded traffic.

Use just one gigabit interface and it will go fast.

well..but in that case, why is that device advertised as switch.. lacp is a basic function of managed switches

well..but in that case, why is that device advertised as switch.. lacp is a basic function of managed switches

... because it's certainly a switch. It does offer capabilities in the switch chip that other ROS devices don't have in their switch features (e.g. port isolation is in the CRS switch but not in a 2011).

Here is a wiki article about some examples of CRS capabilities:
http://wiki.mikrotik.com/wiki/Manual:CRS_examples

Perhaps the CRS can do LACP in the switch chip and I'm just not aware of it - check the CRS features manual page:
http://wiki.mikrotik.com/wiki/Manual:CRS_features

Apparently the methodology to get the full functionality from a CRS is different than the typical ROS methodology.

Good luck!

well..but in that case, why is that device advertised as switch.. lacp is a basic function of managed switches

Pretty sure that currently the CRS switch chip's only supports static bonding in the switch, not LACP.

I believe the intent is to make them capable, but for some reason it doesn't seem to be a priority for Mikrotik yet.