# Bug in LACP reporting in Devices list **URL:** \ **Category:** General\ **Tags:** bug-report\ **Created:** [January 31, 2025, 11:30am UTC](https://forum.alta.inc/t/bug-in-lacp-reporting-in-devices-list/4513 "2025-01-31T11:30:53Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 5\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![ebuckland81](https://forum.alta.inc/user_avatar/forum.alta.inc/ebuckland81/32/3446_2.png) [@ebuckland81](https://forum.alta.inc/u/ebuckland81)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2025, 11:30am UTC](https://forum.alta.inc/t/bug-in-lacp-reporting-in-devices-list/4513/1 "2025-01-31T11:30:53Z")
From what I see so far, the actual LACP functionality is working like expected. 👍However, my experience of reporting on LACP ports/devices is that what is shown in the devices list is a bit uncertain, it shows wrong Link, Ch/Port and VLAN or sometimes some of them correct or partially correct. See below explanation and figures. I have combined port 3 and 4, on the S8 switch, for a Synology DS220+ NAS. This is configured on port 3. I did not change anything for port 4, but that should be implicit by configuration of port 3?! ![1000005956](https://forum.alta.inc/uploads/default/original/2X/0/02963c6203050aa522c17da4177537497ce6efd9.jpeg) There is activity on port 3 and 4 and the LACP seems to work in terms of access to the NAS, but the device name is missing: ![1000005955](https://forum.alta.inc/uploads/default/original/2X/4/49f2a92cabb1dc84369cc887405e2877f29dcdad.jpeg) On the devices level this is presented with the intended device name but as Link=Route10, Ch/Port=L3 and VLAN=12. Traffic shows nothing. ![1000005951](https://forum.alta.inc/uploads/default/original/2X/1/1f7154011167755657915f4140bbf155e80e0c04.jpeg) ![1000005957](https://forum.alta.inc/uploads/default/original/2X/b/bbf48eb4c389778da391243b727e331a527a4a76.jpeg) L3 is somewhat correct in terms of that the S8 switch is connected to that port. VLAN is erroneous, but I guess that relates to the same issue as I previously reported here: > [@VLAN and port tagging confusion](https://forum.alta.inc/t/vlan-and-port-tagging-confusion/4439/7): > > Agree totally. However, the intention was to follow exactly that procedure already before, so I would assume it should have worked. But to be sure I set up a new VLAN 91 right now as per your instructions (also with only one IP in the pool with your suggestion on /30). I assumed step 5. relates to the Allowed VLANs, and to check the specific VLAN, now 91, only. This time VLAN in the device list shows up as 26. joyjoy Edit: VLAN 26 is not among the defined VLANs. Edit 2: After a reboot I … After another try setting up the combined ports it shows Link=S8 switch, Ch/Port=4 and VLAN=50. Link reverted to blank after very short while VLAN remained correct as well as Ch/Port. Even though I would have imagined it to show 3 as it was the _main_ port, that I configured, or 3,4 as the list of ports in the aggregation. Traffic is still showing nothing on the devices page. ![1000005958](https://forum.alta.inc/uploads/default/original/2X/f/f0394bfe43251b4b6d719a15eecb79605b88b7c5.jpeg) Another restart of the NAS and the “device” shows up as connected to the Route10, L3 VLAN 12 again… ---
**Author:** ![Alta-MikeD](https://forum.alta.inc/user_avatar/forum.alta.inc/alta-miked/32/1942_2.png) [@Alta-MikeD](https://forum.alta.inc/u/Alta-MikeD)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2025, 11:08pm UTC](https://forum.alta.inc/t/bug-in-lacp-reporting-in-devices-list/4513/2 "2025-01-31T23:08:04Z")
Thanks for taking the time to report this and the details! I suspect this should be easy to replicate, so I’ll grab another Ethernet cable, enable LACP on my NAS, and see what I see. It’s also on a non-native/non-1 VLAN, so similar to your setup. I’ll follow up with you soon. ---
**Author:** ![ebuckland81](https://forum.alta.inc/user_avatar/forum.alta.inc/ebuckland81/32/3446_2.png) [@ebuckland81](https://forum.alta.inc/u/ebuckland81)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2025, 7:40pm UTC](https://forum.alta.inc/t/bug-in-lacp-reporting-in-devices-list/4513/3 "2025-02-13T19:40:44Z")
Hi, seems like you dug in and narrowed it down quickly, the latest release resolved this issue 🙂 Quoting the latest firmware release: > [@Switch - Release Notes](https://forum.alta.inc/t/switch-release-notes/839/1): > > ## 2.1s > > _Released on 02/13/2025_ > > - Add support for configuring flow control. > - **S8/S16: Resolve incorrectly reported ports on LACP links.** > - Improve IGMP snooping stability. Noted a little feature: The secondary port is also listed in the Devices list, obviously without an IP as it is aggregated with the primary port. I guess it should be listed as it has its own MAC. I just updated the name to keep track of both ports/“devices”. Just a note, and I don’t know of there is any better representation of this. ![1000006180](https://forum.alta.inc/uploads/default/original/2X/2/2a6a4f9317eee9e0318bede152961d68a1a43f28.jpeg) ---
**Author:** ![Alta-MikeD](https://forum.alta.inc/user_avatar/forum.alta.inc/alta-miked/32/1942_2.png) [@Alta-MikeD](https://forum.alta.inc/u/Alta-MikeD)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2025, 11:19pm UTC](https://forum.alta.inc/t/bug-in-lacp-reporting-in-devices-list/4513/4 "2025-02-13T23:19:02Z")
> [@ebuckland81](#): > > The secondary port is also listed in the Devices list, obviously without an IP as it is aggregated with the primary port. I guess it should be listed as it has its own MAC. Sometime down the road we will merge LAGs in a logical way to clean up the client device list. ---
**Author:** ![system](https://forum.alta.inc/uploads/default/original/1X/087669c3d7c0a6495087b41d6f385a6771f2231c.png) [@system](https://forum.alta.inc/u/system)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2026, 6:25am UTC](https://forum.alta.inc/t/bug-in-lacp-reporting-in-devices-list/4513/5 "2026-06-11T06:25:57Z")