Re: Etherchannel Issue

Hi ,

I tried digging into some diff diff documents and didnt find anywhere that
Etherchannel port needs to be matches @ other end .

Both the *auto* and *desirable* modes enable ports to negotiate with partner
ports to form an EtherChannel based on criteria such as port speed and, for
Layer 2 EtherChannels, trunking state and VLAN numbers.

Cheers!!!!!
Rsharma

On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 4:02 AM, Larry Hadrava <larryh_at_ipexpert.com> wrote:

> I will qualify my statements with the fact that it may vary depending upon
> if your portchannels are L2 or L3 depending upon the platform,
>
> I've deployed many 4500, 6500 and 37xx series platforms with L3 port
> channels using the non-matched channel-group numbers method.
>
> It makes it a lot easier when trying to troubleshoot a large environment if
> the channel-group numbers make sense like a link between First floor SW1 to
> Second Floor SW1 to use 12 for SW and 21 for SW2 or whatever works for you.
>
> It makes it even easier if you take the time to make descriptions under the
> physical ports and logical portchannel as to where the other end is :-)
> Larry Hadrava
> CCIE #12203 CCNP CCNA
> Sr. Support Engineer IPexpert, Inc.
> URL: http://www.IPexpert.com
>
>
> On Sun, May 24, 2009 at 6:25 PM, Larry Hadrava <larryh_at_ipexpert.com>
> wrote:
>
> > 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 <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
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> Subscription information may be found at:
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html

Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
Received on Mon May 25 2009 - 04:14:29 ART