Ruckus ZD 3000 team up the 2 NICs help

[MicrodigitUK]

OK I haven’t tried this but, on a Ruckus ZD 3000 can I team up the 2 NICs to my core switch to give me a 2Gb Ethernet connection.

 

And if yes how?

 

I have HP Procurve core switch that I would like to plug the ZD in with the teamed 2Gb Ethernet connection.

[robk]

not quite sure why you would need to do this. WLAN traffic is not usually

Routed via the controller, only the management traffic going to the controller.

[MicrodigitUK]

not quite sure why you would need to do this. WLAN traffic is not usually

Routed via the controller, only the management traffic going to the controller.

 

I have some APs in tunnel mode on laptop trolleys. Ther trafic is routed via the ZD. So the more bandwidth the better

[SYNACK]

I have some APs in tunnel mode on laptop trolleys. Ther trafic is routed via the ZD. So the more bandwidth the better

 

If the 3000 is anything like the 1100 the NIC are layer 2 bridged (i.e. a basic switch) and so are unlikely to be able to be teamed in this way.

[Destinova]

Ruckus controller interfaces cannot be teamed. This is unfortunate if you are tunelling traffic back to your controllers. There are several reasons to do this, VoWLAN is one, traffic shaping and QoS is another. It's one of the principal arguments against using a controller-based solution as your controller becomes a bottleneck for your traffic.

[Aggy]

Hi @MicrodigitUK,

 

No you cannot aggregate the two 1gig ports on the ZD. There should also be no need to as the default traffic flow is dropped from the AP to its local switch.

 

Tunneling mode is not enabled by default.

[MicrodigitUK]

Hi @MicrodigitUK,

 

No you cannot aggregate the two 1gig ports on the ZD. There should also be no need to as the default traffic flow is dropped from the AP to its local switch.

 

Tunneling mode is not enabled by default.

 

We need to use tunneling mode on our mobile trolley APs as the wirless VLAN dose not come out of standard desktop ports in the class room.

 

So why do the ZDs have 2 NICs? What is the point? Is the hardware capable of link aggregation?

 

The Ruckus switchs support IEEE 802.3ad Link Aggregation Control Protocol (LACP), so why have Ruckus not implemented in the ZD 3000?

 

As every one mentioned tunneling mode is not comonly used. But in my usercase it is necessary, so LACP would be an ideal solution to limit the bottleneck.

 

Aggy could you get Stuart to submit a feature request to Ruckus for LACP on the 2 NICs on the ZD3000 for use with tunnel mode. If the hardware can cope it makes sense if the switches already support LACP.

 

Thanks All

Edited August 7, 2012 by MicrodigitUK

[john]

They are for redundancy if one dies you have the other to go at

[DMcCoy]

So why do the ZDs have 2 NICs? What is the point? Is the hardware capable of link aggregation?

 

It doesn't have two NICs afaik, it has two *ports*

 

From the Ruckus website:

 

Q:

Why there are two Ethernet ports on the ZoneDirector?

A:

The second port provides convenience in terms of connecting an AP directly into ZoneDirector instead of using a switch. You can also connect your laptop into it to configure settings.

[MicrodigitUK]

It doesn't have two NICs afaik, it has two *ports*

 

From the Ruckus website:

 

Q:

Why there are two Ethernet ports on the ZoneDirector?

A:

The second port provides convenience in terms of connecting an AP directly into ZoneDirector instead of using a switch. You can also connect your laptop into it to configure settings.

 

Thanks for the info.

 

Still have the question of, Is the hardware capable of Link aggregation?

 

And if yes, then Link Aggregation Control Protocol (LACP) would be a good feature request for ZDs in tunnel mode......

[Aggy]

We need to use tunneling mode on our mobile trolley APs as the wirless VLAN dose not come out of standard desktop ports in the class room.

 

So why do the ZDs have 2 NICs? What is the point? Is the hardware capable of link aggregation?

 

The Ruckus switchs support IEEE 802.3ad Link Aggregation Control Protocol (LACP), so why have Ruckus not implemented in the ZD 3000?

 

As every one mentioned tunneling mode is not comonly used. But in my usercase it is necessary, so LACP would be an ideal solution to limit the bottleneck.

 

Aggy could you get Stuart to submit a feature request to Ruckus for LACP on the 2 NICs on the ZD3000 for use with tunnel mode. If the hardware can cope it makes sense if the switches already support LACP.

 

Thanks All

 

Hi MicrodigitUK

 

A feature request has already been submitted.

 

The second port is there for convenience to plug an AP or laptop in directly and used for recovery mode to perform fdisk in the event of corrupt FW.

[SYNACK]

We need to use tunneling mode on our mobile trolley APs as the wirless VLAN dose not come out of standard desktop ports in the class room.

 

So why do the ZDs have 2 NICs? What is the point? Is the hardware capable of link aggregation?

 

The Ruckus switchs support IEEE 802.3ad Link Aggregation Control Protocol (LACP), so why have Ruckus not implemented in the ZD 3000?

 

As every one mentioned tunneling mode is not comonly used. But in my usercase it is necessary, so LACP would be an ideal solution to limit the bottleneck.

 

Aggy could you get Stuart to submit a feature request to Ruckus for LACP on the 2 NICs on the ZD3000 for use with tunnel mode. If the hardware can cope it makes sense if the switches already support LACP.

 

Thanks All

 

Is this not a switch config oversight, can you not have the classroom points on the native workstation VLAN, and allow tagged traffic to the Ruckus Controller VLAN and the wireless VLAN. This would allow the APs to dropp all the traffic to the wireless VLAN directly but any standard machines would just be on the standard VLAN.

[MicrodigitUK]

Hi MicrodigitUK

 

A feature request has already been submitted.

 

The second port is there for convenience to plug an AP or laptop in directly and used for recovery mode to perform fdisk in the event of corrupt FW.

 

@Aggy

 

Excellent, do you have a reference number for the existing feature request Aggy?

[White_Fi]

Guys sorry but I have chased this FR and unfortunately it has not made it onto the RM.

 

The issue is CPU bottleneck on the ZD (and not the ports) as tunnelling is done in software. That’s not going to change [any time soon], so if you want to tunnel the following throughput can be achieved:

 

• ZD1100 - 100mbps max

• ZD3000 - 500Mbps max

• ZD5000 - 1Gbps max