Dear All,

With reference to the subject, I want assistance in understanding the cause of improper aggregation over a L3 etherchannel between CCR-1036 and Cisco 3750G. I have configured a standard port channel on the cisco switch and followed steps to create a bond on the CCR from the internet. Unfortunately, since the aim was to merge two 1 Gig interfaces in an etherchannel to increase throughput, i am unable to do so.

The bond is up and running but the aggregate throughput I get is 950 Mbps only and one of the ethernet ports in the etherchannel only traverses 10% of this traffic where as the majority traverses through the other.

For your reference, please see attached snap of the CCR for better idea.

Need your help guys!

Regards.

With 802.3AD (LACP), one stream can only use the maximum speed of one interface (to ensure that packets will arrive in the right order).
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Link_aggregation#Driver_

Thank you. But than is there any way that I can get both the interfaces to traverse traffic so that I can get more than 1 Gig throughput?

From the screenshot you can see that Mikrotik side uses both links and it is pretty balanced.
Cisco side however uses mostly second link to send traffic. Either Cisco balancing does not work as it should (maybe check settings if hashing policies are set correctly) or there is simply one stream that takes most of the bandwidth (as it was mentioned earlier in this topic one stream is sent over one link).
Per packet load balancing would be "balance-rr" mode, but I doubt that Cisco switch support it.

It is balancing properly only on the Tx but on the Rx, you can see the huge difference. I have checked the hashing policies and found them to be OK as the same switch has two other port channels with a cisco switch and the aggregate throughput I am achieving on those port channels is upto 1.6 gigs with approx. 800 Mbps per link.

I tried to run the bond in balance-rr but unfortunately Cisco LACP does not work on it.

Is there any other factor I am over looking or should consider that Cisco to Mikrotik etherchannel cannot be improved.

As I mentioned already Mikrotik is balancing properly. Router can influence only transmit balancing, what you receive is balanced on remote side and cannot be controlled, so you should look for any problems on Cisco switch which is sending improperly balanced traffic.

ACK. I will check it and share updates. Thank you.

Dear All,

With reference to the subject, I want assistance in understanding the cause of improper aggregation over a L3 etherchannel between CCR-1036 and Cisco 3750G. I have configured a standard port channel on the cisco switch and followed steps to create a bond on the CCR from the internet. Unfortunately, since the aim was to merge two 1 Gig interfaces in an etherchannel to increase throughput, i am unable to do so.

The bond is up and running but the aggregate throughput I get is 950 Mbps only and one of the ethernet ports in the etherchannel only traverses 10% of this traffic where as the majority traverses through the other.

For your reference, please see attached snap of the CCR for better idea.

Need your help guys!

Regards.

Hello, as commented, transmit hashing policy on Cisco's devices only work on a "per flow" basis, this means the max throughput of any given connection will always be equal to the bandwidth of any of the links forming the channel (not the sum of). MikroTIk however can aggregate traffic on both links for a single flow (it's one of the transmit hashing policies).
Hope this clarifies everything. 

Hello, as commented, transmit hashing policy on Cisco's devices only work on a "per flow" basis, this means the max throughput of any given connection will always be equal to the bandwidth of any of the links forming the channel (not the sum of). MikroTIk however can aggregate traffic on both links for a single flow (it's one of the transmit hashing policies).
Hope this clarifies everything. 

Please send me your info, I am trying to PM but too new. Need some help setting up LAG to my Cisco WLC and a guest VLAN to it as well as IPV6. Having NO luck.
Thanks!