I need to confirm whether the PA-220 is able to aggregate 2 interfaces or more in a LAG (LACP).
I was able to find out that the PA-200 does not support aggregating interfaces with LACP, but the PA-220 is rather new and I have not been able to find a definitive statement about it. The product comparison indicates that it should be suported on up to four interfaces. Meanwhile the datasheet does not list LACP support.
Out of curiosity, because it was something that we were talking about when I was chatting with the hardware engineer, what was your use case for actually using Aggregated LACP interfaces on a PA-220? The only use cases that we could come up with were better answered by PBF considering the devices throughput limitations.
The objective would in that case have been to provide maximal availability. Terminating the LAG over both switches in the below (distributed LAG) would tolerate a switch loss without even triggering a PA FW failover, and could also even tolerate that one switch is down in combination with that also one PA FW is down.
Click Accept as Solution to acknowledge that the answer to your question has been provided.
The button appears next to the replies on topics you’ve started. The member who gave the solution and all future visitors to this topic will appreciate it!
These simple actions take just seconds of your time, but go a long way in showing appreciation for community members and the LIVEcommunity as a whole!
The LIVEcommunity thanks you for your participation!