From: asadovnikov (asadovnikov@comcast.net)
Date: Tue Jul 22 2003 - 22:06:18 GMT-3
Sure,
Say you have a 'power' L3 access switch which you want to uplink to 2
distribution boxes, and one link per box was not enough to meet your
bandwidth requirements. Then what you could do is do 2 links from the
access to each distribution box and bind them with ehterchannel so they
logically look like a single double-capacity link. Since all access and
distribution boxes are L3 the etherchannel would have to be L3 as well (or
be L2 with a single VLAN over it). As spanning tree does not give you much
benefit L3 etherchannel would be a better fit in this scenario. A little
hard to imagine with 3550 acting as an access switch, but say it was 6500 -
the it is easy to see how you may need it.
Best regards,
Alexei
P.S. As in any real word scenario the pluses and minuses of a particular
technology need to be carefully balanced, and full analyses of such goes
beyond the simplicity of the example.
-----Original Message-----
From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com]On Behalf Of
pierreg
Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2003 4:08 PM
To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
Cc: byme88@yahoo.com
Subject: Layer 2 Etherchannel versus Layer 3 Etherchannel
What I understand:
With a Layer 2 Etherchannel you group layer 2 interfaces together. With a
Layer 3 Etherchannel you combine multiple Layer 2 interfaces as one, then
you assigned them an IP.
What I want to know?
I assume if they created this new technology it's because it must have been
needed. Can some one give me a (real life) example of the kind of problems
Layer 3 Etherchannel solve? If you don't have a real life example, a
hypothetical one is OK too.
Thanks,
Pierre-Alex
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Aug 06 2003 - 06:52:49 GMT-3