On Mar 7, 2012, at 9:23 AM, Nick Hilliard wrote: > On 07/03/2012 14:16, chris stand wrote: >> thoughts/ideas/concerns > > This works fine until you try it on smaller boxes and you find out that > they only support port-channel names up to 48 or whatever. Then you have a > moment of extreme facepalm and go back to Po1, Po2 and Po3.
I've found 'show interface description' and a well thought out (and machine parseable) standard for naming works well. This way you can just find what you want quickly. CDP and LLDP can also assist you in documenting ports as well, though some people don't like the information leakage. - Jared _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
