Hi, We have got Etherchannel thorugh SDH over ethernet links. LACP was the only way to detect failures on SDH back bone. But response time is very slow, it takes around 1 minute to detect failures.
Is there a way to change the LACP timers? Thanks Kamal On Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 8:01 AM, Kevin Graham < [email protected]> wrote: > Absolutely go LACP. One-way, misconfigured or otherwise broken interfaces > in a bundle are handled implicitly and done with explicit signaling to each > side (i.e. Both will see it as an independent or broken port rather than > just shutdown). > > This is can also trivially monitored via the LAG-MIB, saving sone > additional time in the troubleshooting cycle. > > [sent from my mobile] > > On Jan 15, 2011, at 10:12 AM, Keegan Holley <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > On Sat, Jan 15, 2011 at 10:33 AM, Phil Mayers <[email protected] > >wrote: > > > >> 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. > >> > >> > > I'm less concerned with connecting to the wrong device than with > diagnosing > > failures. I've seen issues where a link in a hardcoded etherchannel > stops > > passing traffic but is not removed from the channel since there is no > > negotiation protocol running. Would dynamic protocols help here or is it > > not worth the risk? Just to be clear I'm talking about LACP, but I > assume > > PAGP is capable of the same. > > _______________________________________________ > > cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] > > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp > > archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/ > > _______________________________________________ > cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp > archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/ > _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
