Re: Etherchannel Issue

Channel-group numbers on the same switch going different places of course need to be different.

The channel numbers on different switches generally do not matter (you could have po1 on one side and po35 on the other). However, apparently on some specific switches they do need to match so out of habit and for the sake of sanity I always match them

Regards,

Joe Astorino
CCIE #24347 (R&S)
Sr. Support Engineer  IPexpert, Inc.
URL: http://www.IPexpert.com
 

-----Original Message-----
From: qospf qospf <cisco.qospf_at_gmail.com>

Date: Sat, 23 May 2009 21:24:14
To: Joe Astorino<jastorino_at_ipexpert.com>
Cc: Syed Ali<testcricket_at_gmail.com>; Chris Breece<cbreece1_at_gmail.com>; Cisco certification<ccielab_at_groupstudy.com>
Subject: 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