On 01/15/2011 06:12 PM, Keegan Holley wrote:
At one time the Cisco "fast convergence" SRND recommended channel
mode of "on" because it was a bit quicker bringing links up. We
followed that advice, but TBH I've been reconsidering it lately.
To an extent it depends on what *kind* of etherchannel you're
talking about. If it's router->router and you control the fibre
patching, a mis-patch is less likely.
But if it's towards an edge server, where mis-patching gets more
likely, LACP seems like a no-brainer.
I'm less concerned with connecting to the wrong device than with
diagnosing failures. I've seen issues where a link in a hardcoded
etherchannel stops passing traffic but is not removed from the channel
since there is no negotiation protocol running. Would dynamic protocols
help here or is it not worth the risk? Just to be clear I'm talking
about LACP, but I assume PAGP is capable of the same.
Using LACP is probably better than not. It might not detect all faults,
but it'll probably be better than nothing and it's hard to imagine it
causing problems. LACP is pretty mature these days.
_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected]
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
