Very true. And what's up with that policy regarding VLANs? Does that make sense to anyone?
"From now moving forward we will not allow any subnets on our network. The network must be flat!!" Sounds like they're from the Flat Earth crowd. Perhaps this is the extreme wing of "Switch when you can, route if you must." ;-) >>> "Steven A. Ridder" 1/25/02 7:23:18 AM >>> You don't need VLAN's for EtherChannel, so I don't understand the policy. Anyways, can you upgrade to Gig Ethernet? Or, use 802.3ad if your switch supports it. GO PATS!!! ""John McCartney"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > Hi all, > > I have a question regarding EtherChannel. Is there an alternative to > EtherChannel that will give aggregation speeds that can be implemented on > 6509's. The reason I can't use EtherChannel is that our corp policy forbids > VLAN's so hence no EtherChannel. > > I have a customer who is currently on one 100MB F/E port and soon to be 3 > (all using redundancy --HSPR) and they wanted to know if there is a way to > aggregate the ports? The first thing I thought of was EtherChannel.... > > Any help is appreciated. > > Have a great weekend and GO EAGLES!!!!! Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=33194&t=33187 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
