From: Scott Morris (swm@emanon.com)
Date: Tue Aug 19 2008 - 12:35:19 ART
What show commands did you use to verify? Did you have the "nonegotiate"
command as well?
You'd probably need to specifically talk with the vendor of that particular
lab. But looking at "show etherchannel summary" and "show interface trunk"
can be good indicators of whether there is negotiation set or not.
HTH,
Scott Morris, CCIE4 #4713, JNCIE-M #153, JNCIS-ER, CISSP, et al.
CCSI/JNCI-M/JNCI-ER
Senior CCIE Instructor
smorris@internetworkexpert.com
Internetwork Expert, Inc.
http://www.InternetworkExpert.com
Toll Free: 877-224-8987
Outside US: 775-826-4344
Online Community: Ahhh, but if it was only allowed to post on GS
CCIE Blog: Links off of our main site
Knowledge is power.
Power corrupts.
Study hard and be Eeeeviiiil......
-----Original Message-----
From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
Jason Kline
Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2008 9:22 AM
To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: Re: workbook lab question on trunking
I was posed with a question on a workbook mock lab and noticed that I was
incorrect on my answer however achieved the desired results. The question
was worded build trunks among all 4 switches (3550 and 3560) using ISL, do
NOT negotiate trunk links and build ether channel links that are also NOT
negotiable. For the trunk links I used static trunking with ISL as the
tagging protocol. For the ether channels I used ether channel only, not
PAGP or LACP. I think my answers where correct and however it seems that I
am not. Please let me know what wording I should be aware of to properly
configure a task in a workbook lab.
Regards,
Jason Kline
Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Sep 01 2008 - 08:15:31 ART