Hi,
Can the n5k, n7k do pagp+ yet?
No, unfortunately not. We're using a c2960G for pagp+ because of that...
Sander
___
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at
Can the n5k, n7k do pagp+ yet?
Sent from a mobile device
On 20/03/2013, at 14:25, Ian Henderson i...@ianh.net.au wrote:
On 17/03/2013, at 11:23 AM, Jeff Kell jeff-k...@utc.edu wrote:
We had been doing PAgP on Cisco-to-Cisco, but leaning toward LACP today
for anything that supports it.
On 17/03/2013, at 11:23 AM, Jeff Kell jeff-k...@utc.edu wrote:
We had been doing PAgP on Cisco-to-Cisco, but leaning toward LACP today
for anything that supports it.
In our VSS clusters (Sup2T), we're using PAgP where possible, and LACP to
everything else. PAgP offers dual-active detection
On 3/16/13 5:34 PM, Andrew Miehs wrote:
The cisco documentation recommends static as the recovery times are supposedly
faster due to no negotiation. Not really sure if the downsides make up for that
though.
Who really cares if the recovery times are faster? If you are
recovering, your link
Who really cares if the recovery times are faster? If you are recovering,
your link was down and will soon be up. You're not trying to change the fact
that it was down, and you don't want the up to be half-butted.
With LACP, you might see the link go down more often due to its ability to
Hi Joe,
Any thoughts on what I am seeing? I haven't seen anything like it before.
I don't know what you are seeing, but I am building a similar setup at the
moment (6500-Sup2t VSS + 5548 vPC) so I would be very interested if you find
anything. My current problem is doing VPLS on the VSS, but
HI Sander.
I will let you know if I find anything that tells me what is going on.
Thanks
Joe
On Sat, Mar 16, 2013 at 10:17 AM, Sander Steffann san...@steffann.nlwrote:
Hi Joe,
Any thoughts on what I am seeing? I haven't seen anything like it
before.
I don't know what you are seeing,
Hi Andrew,
No actually they are configured as mode on no LACP. I spoke with a CCIE
a couple of years ago and he told me that use mode on from switch to switch
and lacp from switch to server so thats what I am putting in.
Any thoughts on why the 2960's ports would turn up even with the 5010's
The port channel would be up as soon as one of the interfaces is up using
static port-channels.
Which interfaces are you using on the 2960? I know you have probably
checked, but do they stay up when you remove the cables?
You don't have any like no negotiate auto enabled on the interfaces?
What
Hey Andrew,
Last night we removed one of the fibers on a port-channel that was showing
up and re-inserted it. The link stayed down/down. I decided then to stop
until I had a chance to do more research and try to figure out why the
interfaces and port-channels were coming up with the other side
On 03/16/2013 03:28 PM, Joseph Hardeman wrote:
Hi Andrew,
No actually they are configured as mode on no LACP. I spoke with a CCIE
a couple of years ago and he told me that use mode on from switch to switch
FWIW I've heard that advice before - indeed, it was in the Cisco
Enterprise/Campus
Hi,
On Sat, Mar 16, 2013 at 11:28:42AM -0400, Joseph Hardeman wrote:
No actually they are configured as mode on no LACP. I spoke with a CCIE
a couple of years ago and he told me that use mode on from switch to switch
and lacp from switch to server so thats what I am putting in.
That was
That was years ago, and is not good advice today. Propably wasn't good
advice then, but that depends on how many years ago...
Agreed.LACP is the way to go, avoids all kinds of problems. Static mode
bundles fall into the same category in my mind as forcing speed/duplex on
Ethernet,
: sábado, 16 de Março de 2013 18:37
To: Joseph Hardeman
Cc: cisco-nsp
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] VSS to vPC - vPC to Etherchannel
Hi,
On Sat, Mar 16, 2013 at 11:28:42AM -0400, Joseph Hardeman wrote:
No actually they are configured as mode on no LACP. I spoke with a
CCIE a couple of years ago and he told me
Hi Gert,
I was thinking about it today and it was only last year that I got this
advice from the CCIE we were working with at the time. I should have
questioned his recommendation and kept using the mode auto like I had been
doing.
Joe
On Sat, Mar 16, 2013 at 2:36 PM, Gert Doering
The cisco documentation recommends static as the recovery times are supposedly
faster due to no negotiation. Not really sure if the downsides make up for that
though.
Sent from a mobile device
On 17/03/2013, at 11:31, Joseph Hardeman jwharde...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Gert,
I was thinking
On 3/16/2013 8:34 PM, Andrew Miehs wrote:
The cisco documentation recommends static as the recovery times are
supposedly faster due to no negotiation. Not really sure if the downsides
make up for that though.
Yeah, you can screw up your network much faster that way :)
We had been doing PAgP
Using that logic you could probably also argue recovery time would be
even quicker again by disabling Spanning Tree entirely.
Funnily enough, not too many people seem to recommend completely
disabling STP to achieve that goal though.
Reuben
On 17/03/2013 11:34 AM, Andrew Miehs wrote:
The
Hi Everyone,
I saw a very strange thing tonight while putting some vPC ports to a some
access switches. So my Topology is a VSS stack to a pair of 5010 over vPC.
I then have an active vPC from the 5010's to one 2960G port-channel. I
now have this connected to several other 2960G's that are
How did you configure the port channels? I assume you have configured them to
use lacp?
Show etherchannel summary shows?
Sent from a mobile device
On 16/03/2013, at 13:14, Joseph Hardeman jwharde...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Everyone,
I saw a very strange thing tonight while putting some vPC
20 matches
Mail list logo
