I does seem like dynamic would be more risky, but in practice I have found that running LACP is alot better than "channel mode on". It takes a few seconds longer to start up, but does a very good job of protecting against unbound interfaces.
Holemans Wim wrote: > We just got bitten by a serious etherchannel problem : we have an 2 gig > etherchannel link between 2 campus. > Someone on the other end misconfigured an interface (typed 6/1 instead > of 1/6) and had overwritten the allowed vlans on one of the interfaces. > As a result of this, the interface was thrown out of the bundle (at that > side only) BUT the interface stayed UP. On the other campus, both > interfaces > stayed in the bundle with very big problems as a result : the 6500 at > that side considered both lines as valid and distributed the packets > over both interfaces, sending half of the traffic in 'space'. > > If the interface had gone down as a result of the unbundling, there > would have been no problem. We only use static channel settings, so not > etherchannel negotiations between switches. Can this be solved with > dynamic etherchannel bundling ? Or someone has another solution for this > problem ? > > Wim Holemans > Networkservices University of Antwerp > _______________________________________________ > cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp > archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/ -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Christopher E. Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> desk (907) 550-8393 cell (907) 632-8492 IP Engineer - ACS ------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/