Yes, I think what you're trying to suggest is EtherChannel. Easily done on
two Cisco switches that support it, but not on the subject of hub-to-switch
connectivity. The question was to go over any reasons why the hub scenario
does not work. The answer is: Broadcast storms. THanks
Marc
""Paul H"" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> The answer to this question as many have said is no. The reason for this
is
> that to aggregate the bandwidth the ports need to be in a channel, and
this
> cannot be done across multiple blades in a 5509. Ports to be channelled
> together need to be next to each other on the 55's, but on a 6500, they
CAN
> be on seperate blades.
>
> Paul
>
>
>
> I have a simple question, and one which I cannot readily answer at this
> time. Can I safely connect TWO switch ports from a Cisco 5509 (two
different
> switch blades) to a hub to increase the hub's crossconnection bandwidth,
> without having a looping problem? The hub is actually a DEC multi-blade,
> with a swithced backplane. The hub is also connect on two different
blades,
> but the same backplane. TIA!
>
> btw, I have already done this and I figured if spanning tree found a
looping
> problem, it wouldv'e set one of the ports to a non-forwarding state..
>
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
>
> ___________________________________
> UPDATED Posting Guidelines: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/guide.html
> FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com
> Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ---
___________________________________
UPDATED Posting Guidelines: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/guide.html
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
