On Wed, 3 Mar 2010 11:52:42 +0100, you wrote: > EtherChannel can be used if, and only if, both carriers tunnels the > EtherChannel protocol. Such tunneling is only supported on VPWS (aka > Q-in-Q) type of circuits.
Well, actually one *could* run static EtherChannel (A.K.A. 'mode on') without protocol tunneling. It wouldn't be a good idea (because you wouldn't catch connectivity problems without the channel negotiation), but you could. Oh, and "EtherChannel" is not a protocol, it's just a marketing name for link aggregation. LACP and PAgP, OTOH, are protocols which can be used for negotiating forming an EtherChannel. >> Also, to throw another issue into the mix -- these two links are not >> currently equally sized -- one is shaped to 600M, the other is a full Gig, > This can't be fixed with EtherChannels. I agree. Bad idea. -A _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
