CISCO-SW2#show interface trunk Port Mode Encapsulation Status Native vlan Gi0/3 on 802.1q trunking 1 Gi0/6 on 802.1q trunking 1 Gi0/8 on 802.1q trunking 1 Po1 on 802.1q trunking 1
Port Vlans allowed on trunk Gi0/3 1-3,90,100 Gi0/6 1-3,90,100 Gi0/8 1-3,90,100 Po1 1-3,100 Port Vlans allowed and active in management domain Gi0/3 1-3 Gi0/6 1-3 Gi0/8 1-3 Po1 1-3 Port Vlans in spanning tree forwarding state and not pruned Gi0/3 1-3 Gi0/6 1-3 Gi0/8 1-3 Po1 1-3 On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 5:09 PM, Andrew Miehs <[email protected]> wrote: > What does Show interface trunk show? > > Sent from a mobile device > > On 21/02/2013, at 9:05, "Kevin Berry" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Etherchannel now shows only the two uplink ports, as below: > > > > Group Port-channel Protocol Ports > >> ------+-------------+-----------+------------------------------------- > >> ------+-------------+-----------+------ > >> ---- > >> 1 Po1(SU) LACP Gi0/20(P) Gi0/22(P) > >> > >> You original show etherchannel had too many ports in the portchannel. > Have > > you fixed this yet? > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Andrew Miehs [mailto:[email protected]] > > Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2013 5:03 PM > > To: Kevin Berry > > Cc: <[email protected]> > > Subject: Re: [c-nsp] FW: Cisco blade switch config > > > > > > > > Sent from a mobile device > > > > On 21/02/2013, at 8:11, "Kevin Berry" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> Yes, I am aware. My HP simply was configured something like: > >> > >> Config t > >> Trunk 21-22 trk1 lacp > >> Trunk 37-38 trk2 lacp > >> Exit > >> > >> Then I made sure that those trunks were TAGGED for each VLAN. > >> > >> The HP switch, appears correct. I believe, even by review Then for > >> Cisco, I built Etherchannel LACP from ports. My etherchannel summary > >> now shows that gi 0/20 & 0/22 are in use and bundled in port channel. > >> So that seems fine. > > > > > >> My etherchannel for those ports was built for channel 1, or PO1. > >> Config > >> reads: > >>> interface Port-channel1 > >>> description HP CORE > >>> switchport trunk allowed vlan 1-3,100 switchport mode trunk > >>> spanning-tree portfast trunk spanning-tree vlan 4-99 cost 20 ! > >>> interface GigabitEthernet0/1 > >>> switchport trunk allowed vlan 1-3,100 switchport mode trunk speed > >>> 1000 channel-group 1 mode active spanning-tree portfast ! > >>> interface GigabitEthernet0/2 > >>> switchport trunk allowed vlan 1-3,100 switchport mode trunk speed > >>> 1000 channel-group 1 mode active spanning-tree portfast > > > > You original show etherchannel had too many ports in the portchannel. > Have > > you fixed this yet? > > > >> Now, this being the case, would you not expect these ports to carry > >> traffic on those vlans (1,2,3,100) ? > >> If I have a ESX host in gi 0/1 and it has vm's on 2 of those vlans, > >> and 2 virtual switches are configured, one for each ip segment/vlan, > >> then each VM should send traffic to my uplink ports, in this case gi > >> 0/20 & 0/22, which will pass all those vlans on to the next switch? > >> > >> It is odd to me, as port gi 0/1 needs to be able to actually > >> accommodate multiple vlans, so to me that would be a trunk. Then, to > >> combine multiple ports to move traffic, I need the etherchannel (with > >> LACP talking to the HP). It seems this all works fine as long as only > >> 1 vlan is applied. AS soon as the expectation is for more than one vlan, > > it ceases. > > > _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
