Do you still need separate ether-channels on the Cisco side if the cluster is Active Active?
Cisco: interface Port-channel1 description uplink to FortigateFW switchport trunk encapsulation dot1q switchport trunk allowed vlan 100-150,200-250,300-350 switchport mode trunk spanning-tree portfast trunk end Fortigate: config system interface edit " LACP VLAN Group" set vdom " Blah" set type aggregate set member " port28" " port29" set snmp-index 52 set lacp-mode static next endThe cisco stuff you posted is NOT a lacp bundle btw. Here' s a real LACP mode active from a 3750G int range gi 1/0/1-2 no shut switchport channel-group 10 mode active channel-protocol lacp load-interval 30 logging event link-status logging event bundle-status ! ! int port 10 description 2 GIG bundle to FGT ! Keep in mind you can trunk over the etherchannel also. So this will allow you to use the aggregate ports more effective and by issuing sub-intf
PCNSE
NSE
StrongSwan
The cisco stuff you posted is NOT a lacp bundle btw.You' re absolutely correct, it' s not LACP but raw/static etherchannel. We had several issues when we did our deployment where the Cisco and Fortigate would either not negotiate at all or it would negotiate too often and drop the link. Changing to use a static link aggregation was the best solution in our case, though it' s not the only way aggregation can be done. That' s also the reason the interface is labeled " LACP VLAN Group" it was originally a proper LACP configuration. I know some people argue against using static aggregation because there are some dangers with MAC flapping & loops, but in a DC environment where physical connections are static(we' ve made no physical changes to our 1240B' s in 3.5 years) the dangers are minimal. IMO, LACP introduces a bigger risk where a software bug can cause the negotiation to not work properly, ie see ShrewLWD post that mentions bug #0229638. As for the stability of 5.0, I' d have to agree that there have been several bugs that could have been nasty to our Production environment. 5.0 GA -> 5.0.2 were not " friendly" while 5.0.3 was actually somewhat mature. I guess that' s why we send firmware changes through our Test and DR environments before they hit Production. I also have to say I' m not overly happy with the way that new features and changes of functionality are introduced in the minor releases, they should be bug fixes only. Regards, Matthew Mollenhauer
PCNSE
NSE
StrongSwan
PCNSE
NSE
StrongSwan
Select Forum Responses to become Knowledge Articles!
Select the “Nominate to Knowledge Base” button to recommend a forum post to become a knowledge article.
User | Count |
---|---|
1740 | |
1108 | |
752 | |
447 | |
240 |
The Fortinet Security Fabric brings together the concepts of convergence and consolidation to provide comprehensive cybersecurity protection for all users, devices, and applications and across all network edges.
Copyright 2024 Fortinet, Inc. All Rights Reserved.