Sign up ×
Unix & Linux Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for users of Linux, FreeBSD and other Un*x-like operating systems. It's 100% free, no registration required.

I'm almost to the point where I can post the solution I wound up with for my complex port bonding question. However, in reading the bonding.txt file, I see this option text:


Specifies the 802.3ad aggregation selection logic to use.  The possible values and their effects are:

  stable or 0

    The active aggregator is chosen by largest aggregate bandwidth.

    Reselection of the active aggregator occurs only when all slaves of the active aggregator are down or the active aggregator has no slaves.

    This is the default value.

  bandwidth or 1

    The active aggregator is chosen by largest aggregate bandwidth. Reselection occurs if: 

      - A slave is added to or removed from the bond

      - Any slave's link state changes

      - Any slave's 802.3ad association state changes

      - The bond's administrative state changes to up

  count or 2

    The active aggregator is chosen by the largest number of ports (slaves). Reselection occurs as described under the "bandwidth" setting, above.

The way this is written, I can't tell if a single bond can contain more than one aggregator, or not! If the bonding module is smart enough to sort out more than one aggregation within a bond, I'm golden!

Let me simplify my drawing from over there:

____________ eth1   ________   eth2 ____________
| switch 1 |========| host |--------| switch 2 |
------------ eth3   --------        ------------

These switches do not do 802.3ad across switches. So, if I put all three interfaces into a single 802.3ad bond, do I get two aggregators? One containing eth1 & eth3, the other just holding eth2? Conceivably, the LACP signals between the host and the switches would be enough to do that. I just don't know if that capability is actually built in.

Anyone? Anyone? Can I get two aggregators out of a single interface bond?

share|improve this question

1 Answer 1

up vote 2 down vote accepted

Yes, given the following config:

.-----------.   .-----------.
|  Switch1  |   |  Switch2  |
'-=-------=-'   '-=-------=-'
  |       |       |       |
  |       |       |       |
| eth0 | eth1 | eth2 | eth3 |
|           bond0           |

Where each switch has its two ports configured in a PortChannel, the Linux end with the LACP bond will negotiate two Aggregator IDs:

Aggregator ID 1
 - eth0 and eth1

Aggregator ID 2
 - eth2 and eth3

And the switches will have a view completely separate of each other.

Switch 1 will think:

Switch 1
 PortChannel 1
 - port X
 - port Y

Switch 2 will think:

Switch 2
 PortChannel 1
 - port X
 - port Y

From the Linux system with the bond, only one Aggregator will be used at a given time, and will fail over depending on ad_select.

So assuming Aggregator ID 1 is in use, and you pull eth0's cable out, the default behaviour is to stay on Aggregator ID 1.

However, Aggregator ID 1 only has 1 cable, and there's a spare Aggregator ID 2 with 2 cables - twice the bandwidth!

If you use ad_select=count or ad_select=bandwidth, the active Aggregator ID fails over to an Aggregator with the most cables or the most bandwidth.

Note that LACP mandates an Aggregator's ports must all be the same speed and duplex, so I believe you could configure one Aggregator with 1Gbps ports and one Aggregator with 10Gbps ports, and have intelligent selection depending on whether you have 20/10/2/1Gbps available.

If this doesn't make sense, let me know, I'd love to improve this answer. LACP is a fantastic protocol which can do a lot of things people don't know about, this is one of the common ones.

People always want to "bond bonds" which cannot be done, but LACP allows the same setup with even more advantages and smart link selection.

Note on VPC

Some switches can be configured to "logically join" an Aggregator, so then the two switches act as one Aggregator ID. This is commonly called "Virtual Port Channel".

This is possible, but is not what we're talking about here. In this answer, we're talking about two discrete switches which have no knowledge of each other.

share|improve this answer

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.