On 01/15/2011 12:42 AM, Peter Rathlev wrote:
On Fri, 2011-01-14 at 18:50 -0500, Keegan Holley wrote:
Just wondering what the general consensus was on hard coding vs. negotiating
etherchannels. I've always hard coded them and viewed the negotiation
protocols as a possible point of failure.
We always use LACP, since an unconditional port-channel connected to
something that's not a port-channel might lead to problems. I view it a
little like GE auto-negotiation -- I can't see a reason for not using
it.
At one time the Cisco "fast convergence" SRND recommended channel mode
of "on" because it was a bit quicker bringing links up. We followed that
advice, but TBH I've been reconsidering it lately.
To an extent it depends on what *kind* of etherchannel you're talking
about. If it's router->router and you control the fibre patching, a
mis-patch is less likely.
But if it's towards an edge server, where mis-patching gets more likely,
LACP seems like a no-brainer.
_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected]
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
