On Friday 12 June 2009 11:34:14 am Pete Templin wrote: > Geoffrey Pendery wrote: > > > I have a question of my own, since this subject has come up a time or > > two - regarding the 6148's, the statement is made a couple times > > that Etherchannel will get you port redundancy but no extra > > bandwidth, since the ASIC is only a gig. But if I distribute my > > channel across two slots, say Gig 1/1 and Gig 2/1, does that get me > > around the gig limit? Or even Gig 1/1 and Gig 1/48, since it's > > separate ASICs? Logic tells me yes, but I've heard the "1 gig limit" > > mentioned as if it's a hard platform limitation, not just a result of > > a particular bottleneck. My instinctive behavior with channels is to > > span them across blades anyway, to guard against blade failure.... > > My understanding (since my google-fu won't find a quickie answer at the > moment) is that 6148s copy any EtherChannel frames to every ASIC on the > card, so you can get to 2G by spreading over two cards, but you're still > limited to 1G no matter no many controllers you cover within a 6148. :( > > We've updated the banners on all relevant 6148-loaded chassis to remind > folks to never build EtherChannels on those cards. Oh well...
My understanding was that every EtherChannel frame is delivered (by Sup) to every ASIC involved (has a port) in EtherChannel regardless of which card it is on. So you can't get more than 1G even if you distribute your EtherChannel over several cards. Am I wrong? Michael _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
