On Friday, March 09, 2012 06:52:03 AM Alan Buxey wrote: > another 'agreed' - however, we do try to use standard > numbers for particular types of port-channel - ie doing > something like ensuring the po1 on an aggregator switch > is ALWAYS the link up to the core (and not a > port-channel to a stack of access switches or a > workstation) - this simplifies a lot of monitoring and > sanity checking of configs/status of links etc.
What happens when you introduce a new vendor that starts numbering bundled interfaces with "0" :-)? Or when a new BU in Cisco decide to do something different with their bundle links that is quite different from the BU whose systems you're currently using :-)? Of course, maybe corner cases for most folk, but then again, I realize that one can't possibly conceieve every possible eventuality. Only time and joy/pain will truly determine your thoughts on the matter. Cheers, Mark.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
