Right now, I am in the process of redesigning my network and I had the Idea to connect my two main switches and my FW with a ring like topology. I know that in a typical home network with a 50/10 WAN connection this is absolutely unnecessary. I want to do this anyway, for learning and bragging purpose.
Assuming that I have several VLANs and on each switch at least one device in each VLAN. All Connections between the two switches and the FW are trunk routes for all VLANs. The Omada Controller is running virtualized on a server connected to one of the switches.
My Goal is to distribute traffic over all connections to avoid bottlenecks. I don’t want traffic for devices within the same subnet to flow through FW and I don’t want Internet traffic flow through the connection between switches.
I first read the LACP documentation for omada and OPNsense, but it is mostly intended for two or more lines between two devices and not for a ring topology like I want.
I then read the ®STP documentation and couldn’t find an option that doesn’t simply cut one connection, but “directs” traffic base on the shortest route.
Did I miss something in the documentation, should I look at another protocol/option, or is this something prosumer hardware like I use simply isn’t capable of?
Ring like topology is anathema to Ethernet networking. If you really somehow create a ring in your network it will cause problems. Most commonly your switches will detect a ring through spanning tree protocol (STP) and shut a link in the ring down. You always want to have a star topology in Ethernet networks. If you want more bandwidth or redundancy in critical links, use LAG connections.
Not exactly what I wanted to achieve with my idea, but it seems that my idea is not feasible. But thank you, for your answer.
Not to be the stick in the mud but LACP does not really give you more bandwidth per se. This is something people really should internalize and understand. It can give you more bandwidth for multiple clients, but not a single client (not a single point to point connection). In todays world LACP (except MLAG) also has almost no place anymore because if you need bandwidth you just upgrade from 1G, to 10G, to 100G, to 200G, to 400G and so on.
Absolutely correct but from the context of the OP’s post it seemed they were trying to get more bandwidth for when multiple clients need it at the same time. Exactly what LAG connections can help you with. Of course it is much better to just use higher speed links but LAG connections certainly still have their place when you just can’t simply upgrade the connection speed at a reasonable cost.
LAG only works well when there is a sufficient diversity of traffic flows that can be distributed equitably across the child links. Since many LAG implementations hash only on MAC and/or IP addresses, the distribution can often be poor when there are only a few clients, as is often the case in a home network. This can possibly be finessed by careful assignment of IP addresses, but the point is LAG doesn’t guarantee access to the entire aggregate throughput of the child links.
For this reason, I believe LAG is seldom worthwhile in a home network.