From: Snow, Tim (timothy.snow@eds.com)
Date: Wed Jul 09 2003 - 05:00:45 GMT-3
Ravalino,
With a layer2 ether-channel, when you go into interface fa0/23 configuration
mode and type "channel-group 1" you'll see that the "interface po1" will be
automatically created for you. I don't believe it will do that if you go
into a port that is defined as a l3 port such as "no switchport" & "ip
address x.x.x.x"
I've found that if you go into the interface mode and use the "channel-group
1" command and apply trunk type parameters that they will be propagated to
the logical "int po1" configuration as opposed to creating the "int po1"
defining parameters and then applying the "channel-group 1" that all the
parameters won't be applied to the interfaces.
BTW, "int po1" is needed for both layer2 and layer3 etherchannels, it's the
logical interface that binds the physicals into one.
Hope that answers your question.
Tim
-----Original Message-----
From: Rivalino YMT. [mailto:rivel131@cyberlib.itb.ac.id]
Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2003 3:03 AM
To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: Ether-channel and port-channel
Hi groups,
I found confusing configuration in lab workbook. The configuration is
below.
The task:
Create Ether-channel on fa0/23 - fa0/24, as trunk with encapsulation
isl. Allowed vlan is 1,2,3.
Answer:
interface fa0/23
switchport mode trunk
switchport trunk encapsulation isl
switchport trunk allowed vlan 1,2,3
no ip address
channel-group 1
!
interface fa0/24
switchport mode trunk
switchport trunk encapsulation isl
switcport trunk allowed vlan 1,2,3
no ip address
channel-group 1
!
interface port-channel1
switchport mode trunk
switchport trunk encapsulation isl
switchport trunk allowed vlan 1,2,3
no ip address
My question:
Should we create interface port-channel in this case? AFAIK, port-channel
is needed if we want to create layer 3 interface. If we want to create
ether-channel, we just add 'channel-group' command on interfaces. There is
no need create interface port-channel.
Thank you for your response,
Rivel
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Aug 06 2003 - 06:52:30 GMT-3