Hi,
On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 11:53 AM, Carlos G Mendioroz <tron_at_huapi.ba.ar> wrote:
> On an ideal world, On would be fine I guess.
Agreed. In a properly managed, reasonably static, cowboy-free
environment, 'on' is fine.
I've used 'on' for L2 and L3 Etherchannels for years and can't recall
a single problem (serious or otherwise) directly attributable to 'on'.
> But dynamic negotiation of the bundle allows for those oops, that would
> render half (or 1/3) of your traffic being black holed, to be managed.
> LACP can do sort of protection too AFAIK (i.e. have standby links).
Also agreed. I certainly wouldn't rule out using LACP for future
deployments. Link aggregation is much more common these days and
particularly when interfacing with servers, introducing some more
brains into the equation can only be a good thing.
Cheers,
Dale
Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
Received on Wed Oct 06 2010 - 12:28:48 ART
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Nov 01 2010 - 06:42:05 ART