From: Carlos G Mendioroz (tron@huapi.ba.ar)
Date: Mon Dec 08 2008 - 14:53:57 ARST
Luan Nguyen @ 8/12/2008 14:42 -0200 dixit:
> 1) Those are the 6 etherchannels between the FWSM and the switch.
> When you reload switch 1, you only see 6 for switch 2. Once everything is
> back, you will see 2 Pos for switch 1 and switch 2 each with 6 ports.
Stupid me :) Yup, I did power down one of the FWSMs to make the
switchover faster, that explains the asymmetry.
I did not engage into associating the second number to the slot
in the chasis.
>
> 2) Not sure what you did, but if one port left the channel, that status
> should be Te1/50(D) - D for down, and the port-channel should still
> function.
I did an etherchannel between the 4948 and one port of each 6500,
trunking, and a ping between an SVI at the 4948 and one at the 6500.
-Carlos
>
> Regards,
>
> Luan Nguyen
> Chesapeake NetCraftsmen, LLC.
> www.NetCraftsmen.net
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
> Carlos G Mendioroz
> Sent: Monday, December 08, 2008 6:51 AM
> To: Scott M Vermillion
> Cc: 'CCIE Lab'
> Subject: Re: OT: GOLD Labs On PEC?
>
> I've just done it (the lab).
> There were a couple of things that I would like to understand,
> if someone has a clue.
>
>
> 1) show etherchannel summary showed some bundles that the config
> had no hint about:
>
> Group Port-channel Protocol Ports
> ------+-------------+-----------+-------------------------------------------
> ----
> 1 Po1(RU) - Te1/1/4(P) Te1/1/5(P)
> 2 Po2(RU) - Te2/1/4(P) Te2/1/5(P)
> 3 Po3(SU) PAgP Te1/2/2(P)
> 4 Po4(SU) LACP Gi1/3/1(P)
> 10 Po10(RD) PAgP Te1/2/1(D)
> 580 Po580(SD) -
> 596 Po596(SD) -
>
> This is some time after a switchover.
>
> While stable, they showed:
> 580 Po580(SD) -
> 596 Po596(SU) - Gi2/4/1(P) Gi2/4/2(P) Gi2/4/3(P)
> Gi2/4/4(P) Gi2/4/5(P) Gi2/4/6(P)
>
> but all Gi ports where config default.
>
>
> 2) That switchover was produced by preemtion, and one of the
> etherchannels stayed down from the 4948 perspective:
>
> pod1-4948-10G#ping
> Protocol [ip]:
> Target IP address: 10.252.11.1
> Repeat count [5]: 1000000
> Datagram size [100]: 4000
> Timeout in seconds [2]:
> Extended commands [n]:
> Sweep range of sizes [n]:
> Type escape sequence to abort.
> Sending 1000000, 4000-byte ICMP Echos to 10.252.11.1, timeout is 2 seconds:
> !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> 2d16h: %EC-5-UNBUNDLE: Interface TenGigabitEthernet1/50 left the
> port-channel Po
> rt-channel3............................................
> ......................................................................
> ......................................................................
> ........
> pod1-4948-10G#sh etherc sum
> Flags: D - down P - in port-channel
> I - stand-alone s - suspended
> R - Layer3 S - Layer2
> U - in use f - failed to allocate aggregator
> u - unsuitable for bundling
> w - waiting to be aggregated
> d - default port
>
>
> Number of channel-groups in use: 1
> Number of aggregators: 1
>
> Group Port-channel Protocol Ports
> ------+-------------+-----------+-------------------------------------------
> ----
> 3 Po3(SU) PAgP Te1/49(P) Te1/50(P)
>
> pod1-4948-10G#ping 10.252.11.1
>
> Type escape sequence to abort.
> Sending 5, 100-byte ICMP Echos to 10.252.11.1, timeout is 2 seconds:
> .....
> Success rate is 0 percent (0/5)
>
> Any ideas ?
> -Carlos
>
>
>
> Scott M Vermillion @ 4/12/2008 21:55 -0200 dixit:
>> Incidentally all, the VSS lab pods are back online and available for
> either
>> immediate booking or scheduled booking. I think it's great that Cisco has
>> something like this and I'd sure love to see more of it (how many of us
> have
>> two 6500s w/ Sup 720 10GE VSS in our home labs?!). I would think one way
> to
>> encourage Cisco to continue with this type of investment is to make use of
>> it. Please, if you have any interest in playing around with (admittedly
>> fairly basic) VSS and have access to PEC, take the time to do this lab.
>> It's scheduled for four hours but can be completed in half (or less) that
>> time by a CCIE or CCIE lab candidate with basic proficiency of L2 and L3
>> EtherChannels, etc. This lab even includes a shared server and a
>> pod-specific server with VMWare hosts for connectivity testing, etc. It's
>> way cool - especially given the price!
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> From: Scott M Vermillion [mailto:scott@it-ag.com]
>> Sent: Saturday, November 29, 2008 2:34 PM
>> To: 'CCIE Lab'
>> Subject: OT: GOLD Labs On PEC?
>>
>>
>>
>> Howdy all,
>>
>>
>>
>> Anybody know anything about the Global Online Lab Delivery (GOLD) labs on
>> Partner Education Connection (PEC)? I used to use PEC fairly often years
>> back but have only recently begun poking around there again. There was a
>> very interesting online lab listed and it was only introduced just this
>> year. Yet every time I try to pick a date to schedule the rack I get the
>> following error:
>>
>>
>>
>> "No valid equipments found for the exercise, please contact LabOps
>> administrator."
>>
>>
>>
>> I have no idea as to how one might go about contacting the "LabOps
>> administrator." I seem to recall that at one time they had some really
> cool
>> racks available and I never had any trouble scheduling one. Just curious
> if
>> anybody else has recent experience with these?
>>
>>
>>
>> Just for whatever it's worth, here is the description of the lab I was
>> interested in:
>>
>>
>>
>> "The purpose of this lab is to introduce the student to the concept of
> VSS,
>> understand the conversion process, and to allow them to gain an
> appreciation
>> of the benefits that VSS will bring to the rest of the network.
> Additional
>> labs are also available to help understand advanced VSS concepts such as
> VSS
>> ISSU, VSS troubleshooting commands & Service module integration."
>>
>>
>>
>> Looking at the topology and the steps involved, it looks like you would
> gain
>> a fairly good grasp of actually deploying a VSS. It was estimated to be
> 240
>> minutes in duration. All very interesting if actually available.
>>
>>
>>
>> Cheers all,
>>
>> Scott
>>
>>
>> Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
>>
>> _______________________________________________________________________
>> Subscription information may be found at:
>> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
-- Carlos G Mendioroz <tron@huapi.ba.ar> LW7 EQI ArgentinaBlogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jan 01 2009 - 12:53:08 ARST