Meraki MX450 LACP

[Troyee]

Good day, Hi everyone,

May i ask if it is now possible to aggregate a downlink from Firewall to our Core Switch.

Thank you everyone.

[BrechtSchamp]

Unfortunately link aggregation is not supported on the MX series.

[Nick]

I can confirm what @BrechtSchamp has said. Link Aggregation is not a supported feature of the MX

[Aamir1]

Hi What is the point of having many Gig interfaces on Mx appliances i.e Mx 450, if there is no option to aggregate the ports?

[cmr]

It does have 8x 10GbE ports and one of those can service as much traffic as the device can process.

I'd think they are more there for choice and HA setup.  i.e. you'd use maybe 4-6 of the LAN ports, 2 for the LAN and pairs for DMZs.  If the rest of your infrastructure uses SFP+, use those; SFP, use those; RJ-45, use that bank of ports

[Nick]

I have always thought that there isn't that much you can do with this ports. I'd be interested if / what people are using there for

[RouteProtocol42]

Hi everyone,
I wonder how Cisco Meraki can implement LACP on MX series router, when enterprise grade networks relay on high availability requirements.
Two switches (Stacked or vPC) share the same connectivity and availability, but have only one Uplink to the WAN devices.

Connecting a second interface Spanning-Tree has to have a Alt Block port of any kind in order to prevent loops.
Failover times are up to 35sec (RSTP on normal circumstances) and troubleshooting easy.

This is a perfect enterprise level SD-WAN solution, with a little bit of salt.

I hope Meraki will address this issue and perhaps some OSPF timer inconsistence as well. 

Remark: LACP does only increase bandwidth when proper hash method (Src. & Dst. Mac's) is distributed.
Thanks

[KarstenI]

Typically "Src. & Dst. Mac's" would not increase the bandwidth as one is the MX, the other is the core-switch and only one link would be used. The better would be Src/Dst-IP or Full Flow.

[JoshSC]

We are going to be using ours as a dual ISP aggregator. As said before they (MX250/450) have 10Gb ports. What would be the benefit of bonding more ports when their throughput is only 4/6Gbps. If it is for link redundancy then might as well go all the way and get a second box and HA them together.