From: mgls (04mgls@gmail.com)
Date: Mon Mar 19 2007 - 18:03:38 ART
Yes, my SE shared the same 6500 upcoming feature.
On 3/20/07, Filyurin, Yan <yan.filyurin@eds.com> wrote:
>
> I think I am not fully understanding the question completely, but if you
> needed to do an etherchannel between SW1 and Sw4, you would just need
> completely and transparently tunnels channel protocol across SW2 and SW3
> and you could just use dot1q tunnel for it and if you configure channel
> as on SW1 and SW4, you could probably make it work without tunneling.
> Having a split etherchannel kind of goes against the definition of
> etherchannel.
>
> Not that it helps with CCIE lab or anything but in the future besides
> stacking of say 3750s, 6500 will have a feature where you could turn two
> switches into one virtual switch. I think it should be available
> sometime in 2007 and hopefully will not have too many IOS bugs. :) I am
> actually checking with our SE on a presentation on the new features
> coming up.
>
> Yan
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
> Matt Netw
> Sent: Monday, March 19, 2007 1:14 PM
> To: A.G. Ananth Sarma (GMail); uchil.groupstudy@yahoo.com
> Cc: ccielab@groupstudy.com
> Subject: Re: L2 etherchannel between 2 differents catalyst
>
> This is my first thought, but my final point would be config a new SW4
> with l2etherchannel (2 fastethernet) to SW3 (1 fastethernet) and to SW4
> (1 fastethernet), in others words, config a etherchannel multichassis
> between
> SW1 and SW2 with IP connectivity.
>
>
> * SW2 *
> * *
> * *
> SW1 * * SW4
> * *
> * *
> * SW3 *
>
> Thanks for yours inputs,
>
> Matt.
> 2007/3/19, A.G. Ananth Sarma (GMail) <ananth.sarma@gmail.com>:
> >
> > Hi Matt,
> >
> > By principle, etherchannel is created between 2 switches where the 2
> > or more member ports shall be with identical configuration of speed,
> > duplex and so on. They will serve together to increase throughput as
> > well as redundant connection should any other member port fails.
> >
> > Though your thinking is very valid and novel, I feel this
> > configuration will not work.
> >
> > Can the experts give their valuable input?
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Ananth
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On 3/19/07, Matt Netw <mattnetw@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi GS,
> > >
> > > it s possible make a L2 etherchannel between 1 catalyst in a end and
>
> > > 2 differents catalyst at other end?
> > >
> > > SW1 have 2 fastether in l2 etherchannel, SW2 and SW3 only 1
> > > fastehter each, all switches with int vlan 100 and ip add 1.1.1.x,
> > > the port-channel interface is UP, but there arent PING.
> > >
> > >
> > > * SW2
> > > *
> > > *
> > > SW1 *
> > > *
> > > *
> > > * SW3
> > >
> > > Any thought, thanks to all,
> > >
> > > Matt.
> > >
> > > ____________________________________________________________________
> > > ___ Subscription information may be found at:
> > > http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Regards,
> >
> > A.G . Ananthasubramania Sarma
> >
> > Tel: (00971) 2 6315826 (R)
> > Mob: (00971)50-6115913/8120527
> >
> > Email:
> > ananth.sarma@gmail.com
> > agsarma@eim.ae
> >
> > --
> > Regards,
> >
> > A.G. Ananthasubramania Sarma
> >
> > Tel: (00971) 2 6315826 (R)
> > Mob: (00971)50-6115913/8120527
> >
> > Email:
> > ananth.sarma@gmail.com
> > agsarma@eim.ae
> >
> > ______________________________________________________________________
> > _ Subscription information may be found at:
> > http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> Subscription information may be found at:
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> Subscription information may be found at:
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sun Apr 01 2007 - 06:35:51 ART