Link aggregation between two GS1900-24E switches

Mike_Fossati Posts: 1
edited April 14 in Switch
Is it possible to use link aggregation (e.g. LACP) to connect two GS1900-24E switches witch each other?


Accepted Solution

  • Sakura_T
    Sakura_T Posts: 101  Ally Member
    Accepted Answer
    Why not.
    Make sure you set LAG configuration correctly on both switches before actually connecting them, otherwise you'll have loops in the network.

All Replies

  • Zoolook
    Zoolook Posts: 2  Freshman Member
    Hi, I recently installed 2 switches of this exact model at home, on different floors and they're doing a good job while connected with 4 cables in a LAG between each other.

    Now only the one in the ground floor is linked to the router and the internet, everything hooked up to the other one needs to use the LAG for connecting to the internet. As I still have a bit of physical room to wire a 5th cable between the floors, I'm wondering if I would connect the 1st floor Zyxel directly to the router, would that create a loop? If not, would that be of any benefit for connections directly to the router (internet)? 
  • Sakura_T
    Sakura_T Posts: 101  Ally Member
    edited December 2019
    Not sure exactly what you mean about the 5th cable, can you be more specific about your topology?
    As I know, each LAG can support up to 8 ports in a group, which means you can include the "5th" port into the LAG and there will be no loop concern.
  • Zoolook
    Zoolook Posts: 2  Freshman Member
    edited January 2020
    Oh, sorry, talking about the 5th cable can be misleading, indeed. It is not meant as part of the existing LAG which connects the 2 switches, it would be just physically routed along the other 4 but at the ground floor level connected to the router instead of the switch. So the topology would become a sort of degenerated (only by the physical shape) triangle consisting of the switches at 2 corners connected by the the 4 fold LAG as one "thick edge" and the router at the other corner, if I would add the "missing" edge (remember this corner is currently connected only to one of the switches by the LAG). So as this edge I would add to build the triangle would not be part of the existing LAG, it seems to me this triangle would then build a loop, unless something can be configured in order to avoid the loop.