Why don't you try 802.1q and see how that works for you. I wonder if it would bomb too. Whether using a single VLAN or many the trunk should not fail the way it has. Keeping it simple is a good idea but its not like configuring an VLAN trunk is rocket science.I'm not sure whats causing your problem but being there is a lot less overhead in the frame of 802.1q you may not have the same problems and you'll still be able to scale your network.
""Patrick Donlon"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > Kelly great post and I do appreciate the help, I no think my englesh was > that bad (just kidding), been living in Europe too long obviously. Back to > the problem anyway, I removed the ISL trunk from the etherchannel and it's > all OK now, no errors for the past couple of days. Problem is it's at an > exhibition so it's fairly important it doesn't go down. The reasoning behind > the ISL trunk was an application that couldn't handle an address with any > zeros, so we needed an extra VLAN. The network requirements have a habit of > changing rapidly too so it made sense to implement it at the time. > > My skill level? hmm not sure either, but you're right "keep it simple" > works best for me too. > > cheers Pat > > > -- > > email me on : [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > ""Kelly Cobean"" wrote in message > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > I'll make you a deal...I won't pose design questions in response to your > > fault questions when you can criticize me for trying to help you using > > something other than one big, fragmented run-on sentence. Worse than my > > unsolicited design suggestions are the inability of most people to form a > > coherent thought in writing to convey their point. It makes it difficult, > > if not impossible to HELP with the problem at hand when you must focus so > > hard on deciphering the broken sentence that you can't focus on the > > technology. > > > > Now, I certainly get your point that I'm not sticking strictly to the > > question at hand, but one of the best design philosophies (which > determines > > in part your troubleshooting methodologies) out there is "Keep It Simple". > > There is no need to apply a technology if it's not going to be used. I > > suggest this merely because I don't know you, your skill level, or your > > future plans for this network. My suggesting that you not use ISL if > there > > are no plans for it in the future was an attempt to save you the > heart-ache > > of chasing down a problem that needn't exist, however educational the > answer > > may be. I also caveated my statement with "unless you are preparing for > > multiple VLAN's down the road", so be as scalable as you want, just don't > > assume that I know your future plans. I'm merely analyzing the problem in > > front of me. After all, you did say that you had to get this up very > > quickly. > > > > Also note that I DID included some other thoughts for you to check on if > > diagnosing the problem to resolution is the path you're on, so my message > > wasn't entirely wasted on babbling about my perceived over-engineering of > > your network. > > > > As with all lists, responses to questions are "take it or leave it." If > you > > don't like mine that's fine, but maybe someone else on the list was able > to > > benefit from it. In the future, I'll refrain from any attempts to suggest > > alternatives to problematic implementations. > > > > Apparently Arrogant, > > Kelly Cobean > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of > > Patrick Donlon > > Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 10:46 AM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: Re: Etherchannel/ISL trunk failure [7:38085] > > > > > > I love this group, how's about scalability, new requirements, sorry for > > being sarcastic but it's not about the design, simple as it is, but a > fault > > > > cheers > > > > -- > > > > email me on : [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > ""Kelly Cobean"" wrote in message > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > > Based on the fact that you are only using a single VLAN, I would first > > > question why you are using using ISL trunking? Since ISL is used for > > > Inter-VLAN routing, it's an unnecessary configuration, unless you are > > > preparing for multiple VLAN's down the road. Have you configured VTP > > > appropriately? Also, I would check for any ARP abnormalities in your > CAM > > > and ARP tables. > > > > > > Kelly Cobean > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of > > > Patrick Donlon > > > Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 4:11 AM > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Subject: Etherchannel/ISL trunk failure [7:38085] > > > > > > > > > Hi everyone I have a strange problem I'd like to know if anyone can > > explain > > > why it happened and how to prevent it happening again. I have two Cat > > 5500s > > > connected using four 10/100 MB port configured as an etherchannel, it > was > > > also configured as an ISL trunk. It's a very simple network with these > two > > > switches, a PIX and only VLAN 1 is used. > > > > > > The problem occurred when clients DNS requests failed. The DNS is an NT > > > server which was connected to Switch B, the PIX was connected to Switch > A > > > and the default gateway for VLAN 1 was on Switch A. From a PC on Switch > A > > > you could ping the NT server and the default gateway and PIX etc, but > the > > NT > > > server couldn't ping the default gateway. Moving a PC to Switch B > > replicated > > > the problem, I could ping everything else on the network but not the > > default > > > gateway. When I checked the switches I could see some errors on the > first > > > port of the channel, a few align, fcs and runts, I then noticed the port > > was > > > leaving and joining the spanning tree every 30 seconds or so. Removing > the > > > cable from the port fixed the problem immediately, when the cable was > put > > > back the problem occurred after about 3 mins. I removed the ISL trunk > and > > > put the cable back and it is working and error free for over 12 hours. > > > > > > I'd love to know exactly what caused this, I think it was the VLAN > > > information not being passed down the trunk but I'm not sure and as the > > link > > > had to be up v.quickly I didn't have time to test a few things out. > > > > > > cheers > > > > > > Pat > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > email me on : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=38406&t=38085 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
