Re: Etherchannel Issue

another silly question on that note. If I'm creating port-channels basically
in a "square" shape with 4 switches (i.e. Sw1 has 2 ports to Sw 2 and 2 to
Sw3, Sw3 has 2 to Sw 1 and Sw4 and so on...). Is it necessary, to create a
different channel group for each link? can we name the links b/w the two
different switches to be "channel-group 1".

thx

On Sat, May 23, 2009 at 5:13 PM, Joe Astorino <jastorino_at_ipexpert.com>wrote:

> Glad you got it working Syed. I was going to say, that SHOULD work : )
> ... Just my other 2 cents sometimes I've seen weird things happen if the
> physical interface configuration doesn't match the Port-Channel interface
> configuration as well. <shrug>
>
>
> 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
> Syed
> Ali
> Sent: Saturday, May 23, 2009 7:52 PM
> To: Chris Breece
> Cc: Cisco certification
> Subject: Re: Etherchannel Issue
>
> Hi Chris,
> I noticed later that the UP state was temporary as I was using
> wrong port numbers on remote end thats why the UP state was temp. Sorry for
> the silly question guys. Desirable / Desirable is working just fine.
>
> thanks
> Syed
>
> On Sun, May 24, 2009 at 2:44 AM, Chris Breece <cbreece1_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Hey Ron,
> >
> > What your describing sounds like "mode auto"
> >
> > Desirable + Auto = Good, Auto + auto = Bad. Auto basically being passive.
> >
> > That's how I remember it atleast. I thought desirable + desirable
> > would came up. Can you post your Configs Syed?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Chris
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sat, May 23, 2009 at 6:18 PM, <ron.wilkerson_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Desirable means it will become a channel if the other side wants to.
> > Can't
> > > have both ends willing and no one is trying to become a channel.
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Syed Ali <testcricket_at_gmail.com>
> > >
> > > Date: Sun, 24 May 2009 00:43:36
> > > To: Cisco certification<ccielab_at_groupstudy.com>
> > > Cc: Muhammad Zubair<zubair4pk_at_hotmail.com>
> > > Subject: Etherchannel Issue
> > >
> > >
> > > Hi experts,
> > > When I configure the PAgP (desirable) on both ends,
> > > the port channel is always down down. If I change one side to mode
> > > ON, the portchannel comes up. Can some one explain whats wrong with
> > > having PAgP
> > > (desirable) on both switches?
> > >
> > > thanks
> > > Syed
> > >
> > >
> > > 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
> >
> >
> > 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 8.5.339 / Virus Database: 270.12.31/2116 - Release Date: 05/23/09
> 07:00:00
>
>
> Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> Subscription information may be found at:
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

-- 
--------
check out my blog! http://qospf.wordpress.com
Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net