Link Aggregation Would I benefit from it? :/

[kfarris]

So I'm hosting a lan party hopefully around the first week in January 2016; if I can get the network issue solved. Right now my problem is this 16 Port TP-link switch (TL-SF1016D 10/100mbps switch) tends to crash and by that I mean it simply kills the main line from the router to the switch yet keeps everyone that's directly connected to it on. I believe this is due to us overloading the 100MB line to the router.

 

SO to fix this I was thinking about assigning lan ports 3&4 to link aggregation and give the switch 2 dedicated ports for more bandwidth throughput. In theory this should fix my problem yes? Now I know it's called many things other than Link Aggregation; but basically I'm bonding 2 ethernet cables to the networking switch to potentially allow double the throughput. When this crash happens I can still access the internet if I plug direct into the router that the switch is plugged into so I know it's not the router that's being overloaded. + The router supports gig link speeds just is limited to 100MB cuss the switch tops out at that.

 

 

My network is kinda weird you could say. Incase you need to know the network setup -

(Modem)

       |

(Asus router running Merlin firmware)

Port 1- Windows XP computer

Port 2        | --- Goes directly to the garage connects to a netgear router running DD-wrt (firmware) And then thier is a 16 port networking switch connected to that router/accesspoint 2.

Port3   |---- Goes directly to the back side of the house connecting to a 5 Port networking switch for consoles and a windows vista PC. There's also a netgear router connected to that switch for access point.

Port 4        |-----------The last port on the main router connects directly to my windows 10 PC. 

 

The asus router has a gig connection link to the modem and my PC, The dd-wrt router also has a gig connection link to the main asus router. Everything else only supports 100MB link speed connections. All the connections use Cat6 cable.

[TheKDub]

Unless both devices support link aggregation, it won't work, and typically, consumer grade stuff does not.

 

Imo just get a better switch.

[kfarris]

Lol.. Well the router supports it. I have no idea if the switch does; I mean wouldn't it auto detect it?  

 

Would I be able to check the connection link between the router/switch if a PC was connected to said router via cable using the command prompt? Or even in the log file of the router?

 

(Update 1; Just wanted to say that with tech these days, the hardware actually supports a lot more than what the firmware has included in it..) You'd be surprised how much more you can get out of something feature wise just by switching to a different firmware. Yes it can be buggy but if you're willing to patch it, it's worth it..

[leadeater]

Upgrading the actual connection rate will by far and away give better results than link aggregation, and as already mentioned your equipment on both ends must support it which is high unlikely they do.

 

Get a better switch, even second hand off ebay, and plug it directly in to the Asus internet router. What is the reason for plugging it in to the DD-WRT rather than the DD-WRT in to the 16 port switch, seems like an odd choice. Are you using it for wireless AP or an actual router, if so why?

[MeshFile]

A working switch doesn't just die if users saturates one of its link port. It's likely a firmware or hardware problem on the switch itself. Test the connection of the switch to the router by using other Ethernet cable, doing ping tests, doing arp tests if even layer 2 connections are possible when the issue occurs, set duplex of both ports (router and switch) to auto or force 100mb full duplex/half. If all fail, just get a cheap 16 port switch with no management feature if you don't do anything fancy.

[kfarris]

Well, I've tested the 16 port TP link switch and it does support link aggregation with the netgear running dd-wrt firmware. So I am able to get 200MB Down and 20mb up. 

 

1. Yes I am using the DD-WRT router that's about 250 feet from the house in the garage as essentially a second router; got a 2.4 + 5Ghz wireless client running. 

 

2. The reason the DD-WRT router is connected directly to the ASUS one is because both support the gig link speed connections and allows my 300MB down connection to work better with the wifi/lan connections... It would be less beneficial for me to connect the 1gbps router to a 100mb switch which would then be connected to the 1gbps asus port... (The wireless clients would suffer if it was the other way + it would be limiting that entire network end to 100mb... 

 

I would like to get a better switch but, I don't want to order one due to shipping delays/weather over here... So if you can find a good Gig switch at walmart, homedepot, bestbuy, etc. Then I can see if there's one in stock at my local store.. 

[kfarris]

A working switch doesn't just die if users saturates one of its link port. It's likely a firmware or hardware problem on the switch itself. Test the connection of the switch to the router by using other Ethernet cable, doing ping tests, doing arp tests if even layer 2 connections are possible when the issue occurs, set duplex of both ports (router and switch) to auto or force 100mb full duplex/half. If all fail, just get a cheap 16 port switch with no management feature if you don't do anything fancy.

I have tried different ethernet cables both I made cat6 and a store bought one cat5e.. same result after about 20min of maxing out that 100mb/10mb connection using about 10 ports the cable between the DD-WRT router and the TP-Link switch just dies. I've checked the logs and according to the router it overloaded the port and simply cut connection. Only fix is to unplug power from TP-Link and plug it back in.. 

 

It is running at full duplex. Also, this is a cheap 16port switch that has zero software to control it.. 

 

Update: Funny thing if I don't max out the connection it will function just fine....so basically I can either hope we don't max out a 200MB Down with a 20MB up connection on the TP-Link switch and everything will be fine; Or I probably should just go buy a freaking Gig capable switch...

[MeshFile]

...

I've checked the logs and according to the router it overloaded the port and simply cut connection.

...

What's the exact wording of the log?

[kfarris]

<4>kernel: ip_conntrack: table full, dropping packet.
<4>kernel: NET: 15 messages suppressed.
<4>kernel: ip_conntrack: table full, dropping packet.
<4>kernel: NET: 12 messages suppressed.

 

 

After awhile of messages it just ends connection on the port to the switch; If you want I can post entire log output... But it's quite large..

[MeshFile]

<4>kernel: ip_conntrack: table full, dropping packet.

<4>kernel: NET: 15 messages suppressed.

<4>kernel: ip_conntrack: table full, dropping packet.

<4>kernel: NET: 12 messages suppressed.

 

 

After awhile of messages it just ends connection on the port to the switch; If you want I can post entire log output... But it's quite large..

That error message is indicating it can't track all the connections (states) on its iptable. Increase it to something higher than 65535 (usually the defaults of some router configs). It should have a config page where you can change it or change it directly while sshing it.

 

sources:

https://major.io/2008/01/24/ip_conntrack-table-full-dropping-packet/

http://adrianotto.com/2009/07/ip_conntrack-table-full-dropping-packet/

[kfarris]

I don't think I have that configured?? http://www.dd-wrt.com/wiki/index.php/Peer-to-Peer_(P2P)_Throttling  is a link I found; Under QOS where it says bulk priority for p2p if I set that up it should fix my issue correct? 

 

 

(Update: ..maybe it was the port's number I needed to increase?) I set to default here is a pic.. 

Spoiler

 

 

(update 2 I don't think I know how to increase the iptable.. I don't fully understand when you say connection (states) is that when too many devices are connected/connecting to the router and it doesn't have enough IP's to hand out to said devices..? Or is it when too many packets of data are being sent and the buffer size is too small...)

[MeshFile]

I don't think I have that configured?? http://www.dd-wrt.com/wiki/index.php/Peer-to-Peer_(P2P)_Throttling  is a link I found; Under QOS where it says bulk priority for p2p if I set that up it should fix my issue correct? 

 

 

(Update: ..maybe it was the port's number I needed to increase?) I did here is a pic.. 

Spoiler

portsss.png

Look for advanced settings section where you can change settings like these

If you can't find page similar to that, look for a command prompt/shell execute command where you can enter commands directly (editing the ip_conntrack_max value).

 

I haven't used that Merlin firmware so I can't comment if there's actually a configuration page similar to pfSense's.

[leadeater]

That error message is indicating it can't track all the connections (states) on its iptable. Increase it to something higher than 65535 (usually the defaults of some router configs). It should have a config page where you can change it or change it directly while sshing it.

 

sources:

https://major.io/2008/01/24/ip_conntrack-table-full-dropping-packet/

http://adrianotto.com/2009/07/ip_conntrack-table-full-dropping-packet/

 

Pretty much why extra routers shouldn't be added in to a network unless it is actually needed due to added complexity and points of problems, @kfarris did give a good reason though.

 

I don't think I have that configured?? http://www.dd-wrt.co...P2P)_Throttling  is a link I found; Under QOS where it says bulk priority for p2p if I set that up it should fix my issue correct? 

 

Not quite the correct setting to change. I'll let @MeshFile tell you how since I don't really use DD-WRT but you will likely need to ssh in to the system and change the settings as the links describe.

[kfarris]

Here is a few images I just screen shotted... I only shot what I thought may be useful. All the other pages I have disabled or didn't have any useful info.. Also, do I need to increase this on the DD-WRT Router or the Main Asus one? Or both...

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler

[MeshFile]

...

Also, do I need to increase this on the DD-WRT Router or the Main Asus one? Or both...

The one that output that error message on its log.

 

Seems DD-WRT doesn't have an option to change state table/iptable size 'easily' as you need to do it on command line. This also provide the command to edit it. Note that it will consume RAM (about 160 bytes per entry) on your router so having a small memory is a limiting factor on consumer routers.

 

Basically enable SSH Management on the Administration > Management tab and use PuTTY or something to connect to it and enter the command

~# echo 65535 > /proc/sys/net/nf_conntrack_max

[kfarris]

Thanks, I was able to simply type the command directly into the DD-WRT firmware; There is a section that allows you to type commands in. I saved it so if the router reboots or whatever the command will always be thier. 

 

 

(Under Administrator section their is a tab called commands, and that's where you enter it.) Added that note < incase someone come along and has same issue..