From: Erick Bergquist (ebergquist@ameritech.net)
Date: Wed Oct 22 2003 - 13:00:36 GMT-3
Larry,
Thanks. Maybe because XL doesn't do DTP/PAGP has
something to do with it to. I have a client that
wants cisco to fix this on the XL switches so they act
like 3550s... because its a big deal to them I guess.
--- Larry Letterman <lletterm@cisco.com> wrote:
> The 3524XL needed to have trunks because a switch
> needs to trunk
> In order to carry more than one vlan..such as data
> and voice..
>
> The access/trunk functions in the 3550 were not
> available..
>
> Larry Letterman
> Cisco Systems
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nobody@groupstudy.com
> [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
> Erick Bergquist
> Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2003 10:10 PM
> To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
> Subject: 2900/3500XL switches and IP Phones
>
>
> I know this has been discussed before, but for the
> life of me I can't find my notes or recall what the
> reason was for the XL switches needing to be
> configured as trunk ports. On newer switches, access
> (dynamic) ports work fine and dynamically form
> trunk.
>
> Was it a hardware limitation of XL switches (L2
> only,
> etc) or something else? looking for difference.
>
> Thanks in advance,
> Erick
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Nov 24 2003 - 07:53:06 GMT-3