PA-220 Aggregate Interface with LACP supported?

[R.Borgmaster]

Hi,

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.

Product comparison:

https://www.paloaltonetworks.com/products/product-comparison.html?chosen=pa-220,pa-200

PA-220 datasheet:

https://www.paloaltonetworks.com/apps/pan/public/downloadResource?pagePath=/content/pan/en_US/resour...

[BPry]

@R.Borgmaster,

I'm not positive but I'm also actually pretty interested to know the answer. I'll ask one of the hardware guys here at ignite17 today to let you know what I find out if someone else doesn't answer your question before then. 

[PAN-Expert]

@R.Borgmaster,

It is possible to aggregate them using LACP I have done that and it works well.

[BPry]

@R.Borgmaster,

I forgot to update this and I thought the hardware guy that I talked to said he would post about it. @PAN-Expert is correct and I've verified it with one of the hardware guys at Ignite17, this will function perfectly fine and is fully supported. 

[PAN-Expert]

@R.Borgmaster,

Let me know if you need any parts of the configuration from the PA-220 for LACP.

[PAN-Expert]

@R.Borgmaster,

Let me know if you need any parts of the configuration from the PA-220 for LACP.

[R.Borgmaster]

Thank you both! I have no need to implement this at this stage. I only needed to confirm whether it was an actual feasible option to at all list it in an internal decision meeting. 

[BPry]

@PAN-Expert,

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. 

[R.Borgmaster]

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.

[Remo]

FYI: Probably not that important on a PA-220 but LACP prenegotiation is not supported on this platform (the same as with the PA-800 series)