Re: Design reasons for LACP active versus on

Man, this brings back memories!!! I've gotten called in more than once for
this situation.

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

On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 4:12 PM, Joe Astorino <jastorino_at_ipexpert.com>wrote:

> Chris makes a good point about stackwise situations -- I had the same
> scenario come up in a production environment with a stack of 3750 switches.
> They wanted to expand bandwidth going back to the core, but there were not
> enough uplinks on a single switch. It does work!
>
>
> 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
> Sadiq Yakasai
> Sent: Friday, May 22, 2009 10:38 AM
> To: Chris Breece
> Cc: ccielab_at_groupstudy.com
> Subject: Re: Design reasons for LACP active versus on
>
> Chris, are you a CCIE proctor? :D
>
> Like whoever comes up with these weird scenarios? nice one though ;-)
>
> On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 1:18 PM, Chris Breece <cbreece1_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Hey Geert, I just tried it using this code :
> > c3750-ipbasek9-mz.122-46.SE.bin
> >
> > It worked. Must have been the code were using at the time.
> >
> > Chris
> >
> > On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 3:52 AM, Geert Nijs <Geert.Nijs_at_simac.be> wrote:
> >
> > > Chris,
> > >
> > > Cross-Stack LACP should work. Cross-Stack Pagp will not work:
> > >
> > > "PAgP cannot be enabled on cross-stack EtherChannels while LACP is
> > > supported on cross-stack EtherChannels from Cisco IOS Software
> > > Release 12.2(25)SEC and later."
> > >
> > > See:
> > >
> > >
> > http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/hw/switches/ps5023/products_config
> > uration_example09186a00806cb982.shtml
> > >
> > > regards,
> > > Geert
> > > CCIE#13768
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: nobody_at_groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody_at_groupstudy.com] On Behalf
> > > Of Chris Breece
> > > Sent: woensdag 13 mei 2009 3:34
> > > To: ccielab_at_groupstudy.com
> > > Subject: Fwd: Design reasons for LACP active versus on
> > >
> > > Also,
> > >
> > > One scenario where we had to use "on" versus pagp or lacp was if we
> > > used 3750's w/ stackwise. For instance, if one physical interface
> > > was on
> > switch
> > > 1
> > > in the stack and one physical interface was on switch 2, IOS
> > > wouldn't
> > allow
> > > us to use PAGP or LACP to port channel them. "On" works fine in this
> > case,
> > > just make sure your wiring guys know where to plug in the cables :)
> > >
> > > Chris
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> > > From: Chris Breece <cbreece1_at_gmail.com>
> > > Date: Tue, May 12, 2009 at 9:24 PM
> > > Subject: Re: Design reasons for LACP active versus on
> > > To: Cisco certification <ccielab_at_groupstudy.com>
> > >
> > >
> > > I've created spanning tree loops using "on". LACP has some sanity
> > checking
> > > built in to prevent this.
> > >
> > > For instance, a typical access layer switch plugged into two
> > > distribution switches all connected via layer 2. Configure the
> > > following
> > >
> > > access layer switch:
> > >
> > > *int po1*
> > > *switchport trunk encap dot1q*
> > > *switchport mode trunk*
> > > **
> > > *int gi1/1*
> > > *switchport trunk encap dot1q*
> > > *switchport mode trunk*
> > > *channel-group 1 mode on*
> > > **
> > > *int gi1/2
> > > *
> > > *switchport trunk encap dot1q*
> > > *switchport mode trunk*
> > > *channel-group 1 mode on*
> > >
> > >
> > > Now plug gi1/1 into distro switch 1, and gi1/2 in distro switch 2.
> > >
> > > Watch the network explode :P
> > >
> > > LACP would err-disable the ports in this scenario.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Chris
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 6:48 AM, Thameem Maranveetil Parambath <
> > > tparamba_at_thecontactcentre.ae> wrote:
> > >
> > > > If you configure statically (on), the negotiation time can be
> > > > saved. So
> > I
> > > > would go for (on) rather than active or desirable.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Marc La Porte <marc.a.laporte_at_gmail.com> Sent by:
> > > > nobody_at_groupstudy.com
> > > > 12/05/2009 02:46 PM
> > > > Please respond to
> > > > Marc La Porte <marc.a.laporte_at_gmail.com>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > To
> > > > Cisco certification <ccielab_at_groupstudy.com> cc
> > > >
> > > > Subject
> > > > Design reasons for LACP active versus on
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > From a design viewpoint, configuring LACP (L2 Etherchannel) from
> > > > an
> > > access
> > > > switch (6500) to a third-party server (IBM, HP, etc) would it be
> > > > better
> > > to
> > > > configure our side as "active" or as "on"?
> > > >
> > > > Thanks
> > > > Marc
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
> > > >
> > > > __________________________________________________________________
> > > > _____ Subscription information may be found at:
> > > > http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > The content of this email together with any attachments,
> > > > statements and opinions expressed herein contains information that
> > > > is private and confidential and intended for the named
> > > > addressee(s) only. If you are not the addressee of this email you
> > > > may not copy, forward, disclose or otherwise use it or any part of
> > > > it in any form whatsoever. If you have received this message in
> > > > error please notify postmaster_at_etisalat.ae by email immediately
> > > > and delete the message without making and copies.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 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
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > disclaimer : http://apps.simac.be/disclaimer.htm
> >
> >
> > Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
> >
> > ______________________________________________________________________
> > _ Subscription information may be found at:
> > http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> CCIE #19963
>
>
> 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: 05/22/09
> 06:03:00
>
>
> 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 Fri May 22 2009 - 16:37:28 ART