So I suppose the opposite side was set at the same time to either channel-group 10 mode [active or passive] for LACP?
What about additionally setting.. metro2.tor-Front[760(config-if)#channel-protocol lacp I can't test this myself but saw the configuration option. -Rich >Date: Sat, 05 May 2007 02:39:04 -0400 >From: Dan Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: [c-nsp] Port-Channel Problem >To: [email protected] >Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > >Riddle me this. > >I have 1 physical link, and a port-channel interface operating in PAgP mode. > >interface GigabitEthernet1/21 >no ip address > switchport > switchport trunk encapsulation dot1q > switchport trunk allowed vlan 50,80,119,300-304,349,412,420,440,444,446,447 > switchport trunk allowed vlan add 449,500,503,616,620,900 > switchport mode trunk > channel-group 10 mode desirable >end > >interface Port-channel10 > no ip address > switchport > switchport trunk encapsulation dot1q > switchport trunk allowed vlan 50,80,119,300-304,349,412,420,440,444,446,447 > switchport trunk allowed vlan add 449,500,503,616,620,900 > switchport mode trunk > > >metro2.tor-Front[7609]#sh int po10 >Port-channel10 is up, line protocol is up (connected) > Hardware is EtherChannel, address is 0015.f91d.5c8e (bia 0015.f91d.5c8e) > Description: GEC to metro1.tor-Mowat [Port-channel10] > MTU 9216 bytes, BW 1000000 Kbit, DLY 10 usec, > reliability 255/255, txload 104/255, rxload 202/255 > > >Life was good, then: > > >2 problems. I first tried to change to LACP: > >metro2.tor-Front[760(config-if)#channel-group 10 mode ? > active Enable LACP unconditionally > auto Enable PAgP only if a PAgP device is detected > desirable Enable PAgP unconditionally > on Enable Etherchannel only > passive Enable LACP only if a LACP device is detected > >metro2.tor-Front[760(config-if)#channel-group 10 mode active > > >The interface bounced, and went straight back into PAgP mode..... > >I tried it several times. [EMAIL PROTECTED], always back to PAgP..... >"channel-group 10 mode desirable" > > >Second problem: > >I tried a second link anyway, and when I added a second link into the >PAgP group, the rely on the port-channel interface started dropping like >a stone, packets were dropping all over the place and even though >everything seemed to be up, speed, duplex, vlans, configuration >perfectly matched between the underlying physical interfaces & the >port-channel interface.... the po interface was a mess. The new >physical link on it's own is clean as a whistle when I setup a test >vlan, or set both sides up as routed interfaces.... > >Anybody have any light to shed? > _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
