Re: Etherchannel Issue

Channel-groups are uniqie to the switch.

So for what you are talking about you could have:

SW1----Channel-group 1------SW2
  | |
  | <--channel-group 2 |<--channel-group 4
  | |
  | |
SW3---Channel-group 3------SW4

Where SW1 and SW2 use channel-group 1 for that link
SW1 and SW3 use channel-group 2
SW2 and SW4 use channel-group 4
SW3 and SW4 sue channel-group 3

OR you could use a different channel-group number on each switch.

For instance on links between SW1 and SW2 you could use
SW1 - channel-group 12
SW2 - channel-group 21

Larry Hadrava
CCIE #12203 CCNP CCNA
Sr. Support Engineer  IPexpert, Inc.
URL: http://www.IPexpert.com

On Sun, May 24, 2009 at 12:24 AM, qospf qospf <cisco.qospf_at_gmail.com> wrote:

> 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 <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
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> Subscription information may be found at:
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html

Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
Received on Sun May 24 2009 - 18:25:10 ART