I would like to make standard bonding (active / passive) on my F5 network interfaces.
I have one standalone F5 appliance and it is connected to 2 differents switches.
I would like to not use LACP, I don't need link aggregation, but I would like use the second interface if one of them fails.
Normally that is called bonding and is it pretty simple to do. But in F5 I can't figure out how to do that...
Can you help me please ?
I don't want also use the spanning tree on my switches to do that.
L2 link resilience is subpar, so we go for L3 (e.g. OSPF)
Let's correct some terminology, bonding = link-aggregation, there's no difference. Seems like you want to use a physical backup link which only receives traffic when the active(main link) fails. I do not recommend this setup at all since most likely you won't be able to receive 100% seamless failover in case of a link failure. What would be the second best option for you is going for a static link aggregation setup. In case of static link aggregation, there's no negotiating protocol (LACP), also both interfaces are active-active which will give you more bandwidth. In case of a link failure, your chances of having no negative impact are far better as well.
Refer to image below (static link-aggregation with 2 physical interfaces):
Thanks for this quick answer but I don't think that is a good response to my problem.
[As you can read here](https://access.redhat.com/documentation/en-US/Red_Hat_Enterprise_Linux/7/html/Networking_Guide/ch-Configure_Network_Bonding.html https://access.redhat.com/documentation/en-US/Red_Hat_Enterprise_Linux/7/html/Networking_Guide/ch-Configure_Network_Bonding.html
) : The active-backup, balance-tlb and balance-alb modes do not require any specific configuration of the switch. Other bonding modes require configuring the switch to aggregate the links.
That what we need.
I understand when you said to me that you don't recommand this setup but I think that the only one that will fit my need.
F5 is not a server... network interfaces are part of a network switch...
Can you configure bonding between switches?? No, between switches, we use Spanning tree instead of bonding.
Spanning tree is supported in all appliances (except 2X00 and 4X00 which support it since version 11.6).