From: Gustavo Novais (gustavo.novais@novabase.pt)
Date: Sat Aug 06 2005 - 20:16:25 GMT-3
Hello
Your thought does not make much sense to me... If you have lets say 4 connections between switches, all up, why use only 2 and let the other 2 as backup? Agreggate the whole thing! If one interface falls you will always have 3 more!
For example if you have modular switch (4000 and above) you can group ports on different slots, making it redundant interface wise (if one port of the group goes down, you always have the other) and module wise, (if one module goes down, yadayada...)
If you wish to have real redundancy, you can make sure your physical paths (be it fiber or copper) are different.
If you do not wish to aggregate you can always prioritize some vlans through diferent trunk ports.
My 0.02$
-----Original Message-----
From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of chon_mon@nym.hush.com
Sent: sabado, 6 de Agosto de 2005 21:52
To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: OT: Real World Etherchannel
After configuring Etherchannel between switches, is it common practice to have a backup solution if Etherchannel goes down? For example having two Etherchannels, one with a higher priority than the other? Or is it suffice to say that with several links bundled together, that is enough for redundancy.
Thanks,
Sean
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sun Sep 04 2005 - 17:01:18 GMT-3