Posted: Wed Feb 15, 2023 1:03 Post subject: I figured out LAG bonding, and oh boy is it cursed
In setup→networking there's a setting called "bonding". I would like to set up my r7000 router up with it.
I have a modem that supports bonding. The setting in it is on, and my ISP supports it.
I don't care about CPU bottlenecks, I'm just trying to learn how to make this work. I'm getting a r9000 soon, as it has dedicated ports for this.
There's conflicting information on the forums going back to at least 2007 on how to make this work, or even if it works, and no clear instructions in the wiki.
Firmware: DD-WRT v3.0-r51935 std
Netgear r7000
Edit: Here's the config. Bask in the horror and glory! Also it actually improves performance somehow... I wish bonding worked normally.
Does anyone have any better ideas, or is this just what I'm gonna have to work with for now?
You have no idea how much I hate that this works, but I've been fiddling and searching for weeks to do something similar with my R7000P to try and resolve some weird packet loss issues, and this was the most functional config I've seen/implemented.
I suppose it might be possible to unbridge the relevant vlans/interfaces entirely so they'd show up in the list of bondable interfaces (like eth0 does) without having to create the redundant bridges, but when I tried that the entire router stopped responding to connections and I had to reset the settings entirely. So cursed but functional beats sane but broken I guess?
There have been changes to this code recently. So, if not testing any bonding on current releases, then it's probably moot. _________________ "The woods are lovely, dark and deep,
But I have promises to keep,
And miles to go before I sleep,
And miles to go before I sleep." - Robert Frost
"I am one of the noticeable ones - notice me" - Dale Frances McKenzie Bozzio
Does anyone have any better ideas, or is this just what I'm gonna have to work with for now?
You have no idea how much I hate that this works, but I've been fiddling and searching for weeks to do something similar with my R7000P to try and resolve some weird packet loss issues, and this was the most functional config I've seen/implemented.
I suppose it might be possible to unbridge the relevant vlans/interfaces entirely so they'd show up in the list of bondable interfaces (like eth0 does) without having to create the redundant bridges, but when I tried that the entire router stopped responding to connections and I had to reset the settings entirely. So cursed but functional beats sane but broken I guess?
This works on my router! I have a normal r7000 though, not a r7000p. Nothing seems to have changed about the router performance btw.
Well, this "hocus pocus magic" that isn't supposed to give me any benefit seems to work fine. I'm able to transfer stuff at around 1.5gbps over the internet.
While it may work, there is no benefit above the fact that it works. My R6400v2 is only getting ~30Mb/s on LAN. It is an AP only so no WAN. But compared to my dual cpu port EA8500, it is getting close to ~900Mb/s. That's a pretty significant difference.
I have not tried Bonding, but thought about it several times. I have two Ethernet cables running from the house to garage, presently only using one of them. The goal was to create a Bond from TP-Link managed switches. Never got to it, but speeds are better than expected without. Maybe someday. _________________ Linksys EA8500 (Internet Gateway, AP/VAP) - DD-WRT r53562
Features in use: WDS-AP, Multiple VLANs, Samba, WireGuard, Entware: mqtt, mlocate
Wireless 5ghz only
Netgear R7800 (WDS-AP, WAP, VAP) - DD-WRT r55779
Features in use: multiple VLANs over single trunk port
Linksys EA8500 WDS Station x2 - DD-WRT r55799
Netgear R6400v2 WAP, VAP 2.4ghz only w/VLANs over single trunk port. DD-WRT r55779
OSes: Fedora 38, 9 RPis (2,3,4,5), 20 ESP8266s: Straight from Amiga to Linux in '94, never having owned a Windows PC.
Well, this "hocus pocus magic" that isn't supposed to give me any benefit seems to work fine. I'm able to transfer stuff at around 1.5gbps over the internet.
proof?
I don't see how that could be possible
If your WAN is configured correctly (which it is not) all LAN <-> WAN traffic is routed through the CPU and firewall.
And the CPU is only connected with 1Gbit.
Code:
link: port:5 link:up speed:1000baseT full-duplex
Even if you bypass the firewall, all VLANs are isolated at switch level and are only bridged in the CPU.
again only 1Gbit
I have pondered the possibility of bonding using two USB connections, or a USB and Ethernet connection, this should, in theory be possible?
As an amateur I would assume ctf+fa may bypass cpu enough to give a bonus from bonding? Vs sfe? Vs No HW accel?
Well, this "hocus pocus magic" that isn't supposed to give me any benefit seems to work fine. I'm able to transfer stuff at around 1.5gbps over the internet.
proof?
I don't see how that could be possible
If your WAN is configured correctly (which it is not) all LAN <-> WAN traffic is routed through the CPU and firewall.
And the CPU is only connected with 1Gbit.
Code:
link: port:5 link:up speed:1000baseT full-duplex
Even if you bypass the firewall, all VLANs are isolated at switch level and are only bridged in the CPU.
again only 1Gbit
Do you use CTF+FA?
This could be a reason why packets are routed past the processor
I do use CTF+FA, and tested between a computer with 2 computers on 2 different bonds on the same subnet. That could explain the crazy speeds that outpace what the router can do.
I currently pay for 250mbps internet, but I get 500 with bonding on speedtest.net. The speed boost is probably a carrier misconfiguration, but I can download 2 things at 250mbps instead of just one with this setup. Before I could only do one.
