From: Bob Usa (boby2kusa@hotmail.com)
Date: Wed Oct 30 2002 - 20:02:57 GMT-3
Sorry but Port Aggregation Control Protocol (PAgP) and Link Aggregation
Control Protocol (LACP) are two different protocols that allow ports with
similar characteristics to form a channel through dynamic negotiation with
adjoining switches. PAgP is a Cisco-proprietary protocol that can be run only
on Cisco switches and those switches released by licensed vendors. LACP, which
is defined in IEEE 802.3ad, allows Cisco switches to manage Ethernet
channeling with devices that conform to the
802.3ad specification.
----- Original Message -----
From: James R. Scobey
Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2002 1:25 PM
To: Craig King; R. Benjamin Kessler; ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: Re: FastEther Channel
There are NICs that can be dual homed to different switches and manage
failover with software on the host, as long as the switches have a common
VLAN. Intel pro-share is one.
FastEtherChannel is a Cisco proprietary protocol, PAgP is the IEEE version.
I've yet to hear of a NIC capable of understanding either, though I could be
mistaken.
--Scobey
----- Original Message -----
From: "Craig King" <craig.king@comcast.net>
To: "R. Benjamin Kessler" <bk-lists@kesslerconsulting.com>;
<ccielab@groupstudy.com>
Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2002 3:33 PM
Subject: Re: FastEther Channel
> Etherchannel actively load balances on both links (which link depends on
> source/destination addressing), so both links are active and carry
traffic.
> 2 FastEthernet ports bonded together could transport 400Mbps if running
full
> duplex (in theory). Only when one link fails will all traffic cross a
> single link.
>
> See
>
http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/cc/techno/media/lan/ether/channel/prodlit/f
> aste_an.htm for more detail.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "R. Benjamin Kessler" <bk-lists@kesslerconsulting.com>
> To: "'Nate Kleven'" <cciemail@intellinet.ws>; <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2002 2:38 PM
> Subject: RE: FastEther Channel
>
>
> > If you have a server with two NICs, you can connect one to each switch
> > and configure fail-over (only one active at a time).
> >
> > If you connect the two NICs to the same switch you can do port
> > aggregation (FastEtherChannel) to get more than 100Mb of bandwidth.
> >
> > I don't think you can "split" these NICs between switches and have them
> > both active - you would have CAM table issues.
> >
> > Remember, the way Etherchannel works, traffic between two end points
> > (e.g. server A and client B) will always cross the same "wire" (unless
> > there's a failure) which means that you won't get more throughput than
> > is available from a single pipe.
> >
> > Hope this helps,
> >
> > Ben
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
> > Nate Kleven
> > Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2002 12:33 PM
> > To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
> > Subject: FastEther Channel
> >
> > Can I build a FastEther channel to a server if it is homed to two
> > different
> > chassis? In other words, if I had a teaming NIC, can I plug one
> > connection
> > into SwitchA and the second into SwitchB for redundancy? Is there a
> > better
> > way to do that?
> >
> > Thanks.Get more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download :
http://explorer.msn.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Nov 05 2002 - 08:36:00 GMT-3