RE: Design reasons for LACP active versus on

Chris makes a good point about stackwise situations -- I had the same
scenario come up in a production environment with a stack of 3750 switches.
They wanted to expand bandwidth going back to the core, but there were not
enough uplinks on a single switch. It does work!

Regards,

Joe Astorino
CCIE #24347 (R&S)
Sr. Support Engineer - IPexpert, Inc.
URL: http://www.IPexpert.com
 
-----Original Message-----
From: nobody_at_groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody_at_groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
Sadiq Yakasai
Sent: Friday, May 22, 2009 10:38 AM
To: Chris Breece
Cc: ccielab_at_groupstudy.com
Subject: Re: Design reasons for LACP active versus on

Chris, are you a CCIE proctor? :D

Like whoever comes up with these weird scenarios? nice one though ;-)

On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 1:18 PM, Chris Breece <cbreece1_at_gmail.com> wrote:

> Hey Geert, I just tried it using this code :
> c3750-ipbasek9-mz.122-46.SE.bin
>
> It worked. Must have been the code were using at the time.
>
> Chris
>
> On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 3:52 AM, Geert Nijs <Geert.Nijs_at_simac.be> wrote:
>
> > Chris,
> >
> > Cross-Stack LACP should work. Cross-Stack Pagp will not work:
> >
> > "PAgP cannot be enabled on cross-stack EtherChannels while LACP is
> > supported on cross-stack EtherChannels from Cisco IOS Software
> > Release 12.2(25)SEC and later."
> >
> > See:
> >
> >
> http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/hw/switches/ps5023/products_config
> uration_example09186a00806cb982.shtml
> >
> > regards,
> > Geert
> > CCIE#13768
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: nobody_at_groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody_at_groupstudy.com] On Behalf
> > Of Chris Breece
> > Sent: woensdag 13 mei 2009 3:34
> > To: ccielab_at_groupstudy.com
> > Subject: Fwd: Design reasons for LACP active versus on
> >
> > Also,
> >
> > One scenario where we had to use "on" versus pagp or lacp was if we
> > used 3750's w/ stackwise. For instance, if one physical interface
> > was on
> switch
> > 1
> > in the stack and one physical interface was on switch 2, IOS
> > wouldn't
> allow
> > us to use PAGP or LACP to port channel them. "On" works fine in this
> case,
> > just make sure your wiring guys know where to plug in the cables :)
> >
> > Chris
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> > From: Chris Breece <cbreece1_at_gmail.com>
> > Date: Tue, May 12, 2009 at 9:24 PM
> > Subject: Re: Design reasons for LACP active versus on
> > To: Cisco certification <ccielab_at_groupstudy.com>
> >
> >
> > I've created spanning tree loops using "on". LACP has some sanity
> checking
> > built in to prevent this.
> >
> > For instance, a typical access layer switch plugged into two
> > distribution switches all connected via layer 2. Configure the
> > following
> >
> > access layer switch:
> >
> > *int po1*
> > *switchport trunk encap dot1q*
> > *switchport mode trunk*
> > **
> > *int gi1/1*
> > *switchport trunk encap dot1q*
> > *switchport mode trunk*
> > *channel-group 1 mode on*
> > **
> > *int gi1/2
> > *
> > *switchport trunk encap dot1q*
> > *switchport mode trunk*
> > *channel-group 1 mode on*
> >
> >
> > Now plug gi1/1 into distro switch 1, and gi1/2 in distro switch 2.
> >
> > Watch the network explode :P
> >
> > LACP would err-disable the ports in this scenario.
> >
> >
> >
> > Chris
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 6:48 AM, Thameem Maranveetil Parambath <
> > tparamba_at_thecontactcentre.ae> wrote:
> >
> > > If you configure statically (on), the negotiation time can be
> > > saved. So
> I
> > > would go for (on) rather than active or desirable.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Marc La Porte <marc.a.laporte_at_gmail.com> Sent by:
> > > nobody_at_groupstudy.com
> > > 12/05/2009 02:46 PM
> > > Please respond to
> > > Marc La Porte <marc.a.laporte_at_gmail.com>
> > >
> > >
> > > To
> > > Cisco certification <ccielab_at_groupstudy.com> cc
> > >
> > > Subject
> > > Design reasons for LACP active versus on
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > From a design viewpoint, configuring LACP (L2 Etherchannel) from
> > > an
> > access
> > > switch (6500) to a third-party server (IBM, HP, etc) would it be
> > > better
> > to
> > > configure our side as "active" or as "on"?
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > > Marc
> > >
> > >
> > > Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
> > >
> > > __________________________________________________________________
> > > _____ Subscription information may be found at:
> > > http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > The content of this email together with any attachments,
> > > statements and opinions expressed herein contains information that
> > > is private and confidential and intended for the named
> > > addressee(s) only. If you are not the addressee of this email you
> > > may not copy, forward, disclose or otherwise use it or any part of
> > > it in any form whatsoever. If you have received this message in
> > > error please notify postmaster_at_etisalat.ae by email immediately
> > > and delete the message without making and copies.
> > >
> > >
> > > Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
> > >
> > > __________________________________________________________________
> > > _____ Subscription information may be found at:
> > > http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
> >
> >
> > Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
> >
> > ____________________________________________________________________
> > ___ Subscription information may be found at:
> > http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > disclaimer : http://apps.simac.be/disclaimer.htm
>
>
> Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
>
> ______________________________________________________________________
> _ Subscription information may be found at:
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

--
CCIE #19963
Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net