For the records - we use 3750 cross- stack even with 12.2.25SEC (yeah, dusty by now, but the first version that supported that) and they just work, and they absolutely work fine.
-ako On Wed, 9 May 2007 16:52:00 -0700, Mike Lydick wrote: > I had a similar issue when trying to turn up port channels that span across > stack 3750. TAC recommends not using PAGP or LACP. Have not gotten it work > since. Is this similar to your scenerio? Any resolution? > > ----- Original Message ---- > From: Dan Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Collins, Richard (SNL US)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: [email protected] > Sent: Tuesday, May 8, 2007 7:31:17 PM > Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Port-Channel Problem > > I did exactly that, and managed to get it to go into LACP mode. > > The Etherchannel ran for about 3 hours without a problem, then all of a > sudden started losing pings all over the place. I took one channel out > of service, and it was fine. > > I tested both physical links separately, and they're both perfect. I'm > scared to put them back into the Etherchannel now for fear that they'll > fail again. > > I am using the single fibre SFPs (the GLC-BX-Us and GLC-BX-Ds) for both > of these links. > > Anybody seen an Etherchannel lose it when the two underlying physical > links are seemingly perfect on their own? > > > > > Collins, Richard (SNL US) wrote: > > 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/
