On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 08:15:36AM +1200, Ivan wrote: > I don't believe the section of the best practice guide below relates > directly to dual-active detection as LACP is presented as a recommended > option. Any other ideas for why explicit trunks are not recommend are > welcome.
LACP does a good job of detecting when links have mis-matched speed or duplex parameters. My guess for Cisco's rationale would be that it prevents accidental misconfiguration from splitting your stack. I've seen accidently broken LACP port-channel members, and IOS splits off the incompatible members into another sub-group (that gets named like "Po4A"). This can happen while leaving the currently-active member of the bundle undisturbed. On the other hand, I've also seen statically configured port-channels have members with speed and duplex broken. This way lies madness - some platforms handle this gracefully (2960 forcibly disables the just-changed member), others don't (6500 stops switching on the port channel and any members, causing loss of connectivity). Ross -- Ross Vandegrift [email protected] "If the fight gets hot, the songs get hotter. If the going gets tough, the songs get tougher." --Woody Guthrie _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
