Etherchannel now shows only the two uplink ports, as below: Group Port-channel Protocol Ports > ------+-------------+-----------+------------------------------------- > ------+-------------+-----------+------ > ---- > 1 Po1(SU) LACP Gi0/20(P) Gi0/22(P) > >You original show etherchannel had too many ports in the portchannel. Have you fixed this yet?
-----Original Message----- From: Andrew Miehs [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2013 5:03 PM To: Kevin Berry Cc: <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [c-nsp] FW: Cisco blade switch config Sent from a mobile device On 21/02/2013, at 8:11, "Kevin Berry" <[email protected]> wrote: > Yes, I am aware. My HP simply was configured something like: > > Config t > Trunk 21-22 trk1 lacp > Trunk 37-38 trk2 lacp > Exit > > Then I made sure that those trunks were TAGGED for each VLAN. > > The HP switch, appears correct. I believe, even by review Then for > Cisco, I built Etherchannel LACP from ports. My etherchannel summary > now shows that gi 0/20 & 0/22 are in use and bundled in port channel. > So that seems fine. > My etherchannel for those ports was built for channel 1, or PO1. > Config > reads: >> interface Port-channel1 >> description HP CORE >> switchport trunk allowed vlan 1-3,100 switchport mode trunk >> spanning-tree portfast trunk spanning-tree vlan 4-99 cost 20 ! >> interface GigabitEthernet0/1 >> switchport trunk allowed vlan 1-3,100 switchport mode trunk speed >> 1000 channel-group 1 mode active spanning-tree portfast ! >> interface GigabitEthernet0/2 >> switchport trunk allowed vlan 1-3,100 switchport mode trunk speed >> 1000 channel-group 1 mode active spanning-tree portfast > You original show etherchannel had too many ports in the portchannel. Have you fixed this yet? > Now, this being the case, would you not expect these ports to carry > traffic on those vlans (1,2,3,100) ? > If I have a ESX host in gi 0/1 and it has vm's on 2 of those vlans, > and 2 virtual switches are configured, one for each ip segment/vlan, > then each VM should send traffic to my uplink ports, in this case gi > 0/20 & 0/22, which will pass all those vlans on to the next switch? > > It is odd to me, as port gi 0/1 needs to be able to actually > accommodate multiple vlans, so to me that would be a trunk. Then, to > combine multiple ports to move traffic, I need the etherchannel (with > LACP talking to the HP). It seems this all works fine as long as only > 1 vlan is applied. AS soon as the expectation is for more than one vlan, it ceases. > _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
