Kelly great post and I do appreciate the help, I no think my englesh was that bad (just kidding), been living in Europe too long obviously. Back to the problem anyway, I removed the ISL trunk from the etherchannel and it's all OK now, no errors for the past couple of days. Problem is it's at an exhibition so it's fairly important it doesn't go down. The reasoning behind the ISL trunk was an application that couldn't handle an address with any zeros, so we needed an extra VLAN. The network requirements have a habit of changing rapidly too so it made sense to implement it at the time.
My skill level? hmm not sure either, but you're right "keep it simple" works best for me too. cheers Pat -- email me on : [EMAIL PROTECTED] ""Kelly Cobean"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > I'll make you a deal...I won't pose design questions in response to your > fault questions when you can criticize me for trying to help you using > something other than one big, fragmented run-on sentence. Worse than my > unsolicited design suggestions are the inability of most people to form a > coherent thought in writing to convey their point. It makes it difficult, > if not impossible to HELP with the problem at hand when you must focus so > hard on deciphering the broken sentence that you can't focus on the > technology. > > Now, I certainly get your point that I'm not sticking strictly to the > question at hand, but one of the best design philosophies (which determines > in part your troubleshooting methodologies) out there is "Keep It Simple". > There is no need to apply a technology if it's not going to be used. I > suggest this merely because I don't know you, your skill level, or your > future plans for this network. My suggesting that you not use ISL if there > are no plans for it in the future was an attempt to save you the heart-ache > of chasing down a problem that needn't exist, however educational the answer > may be. I also caveated my statement with "unless you are preparing for > multiple VLAN's down the road", so be as scalable as you want, just don't > assume that I know your future plans. I'm merely analyzing the problem in > front of me. After all, you did say that you had to get this up very > quickly. > > Also note that I DID included some other thoughts for you to check on if > diagnosing the problem to resolution is the path you're on, so my message > wasn't entirely wasted on babbling about my perceived over-engineering of > your network. > > As with all lists, responses to questions are "take it or leave it." If you > don't like mine that's fine, but maybe someone else on the list was able to > benefit from it. In the future, I'll refrain from any attempts to suggest > alternatives to problematic implementations. > > Apparently Arrogant, > Kelly Cobean > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of > Patrick Donlon > Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 10:46 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Etherchannel/ISL trunk failure [7:38085] > > > I love this group, how's about scalability, new requirements, sorry for > being sarcastic but it's not about the design, simple as it is, but a fault > > cheers > > -- > > email me on : [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > ""Kelly Cobean"" wrote in message > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > Based on the fact that you are only using a single VLAN, I would first > > question why you are using using ISL trunking? Since ISL is used for > > Inter-VLAN routing, it's an unnecessary configuration, unless you are > > preparing for multiple VLAN's down the road. Have you configured VTP > > appropriately? Also, I would check for any ARP abnormalities in your CAM > > and ARP tables. > > > > Kelly Cobean > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of > > Patrick Donlon > > Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 4:11 AM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: Etherchannel/ISL trunk failure [7:38085] > > > > > > Hi everyone I have a strange problem I'd like to know if anyone can > explain > > why it happened and how to prevent it happening again. I have two Cat > 5500s > > connected using four 10/100 MB port configured as an etherchannel, it was > > also configured as an ISL trunk. It's a very simple network with these two > > switches, a PIX and only VLAN 1 is used. > > > > The problem occurred when clients DNS requests failed. The DNS is an NT > > server which was connected to Switch B, the PIX was connected to Switch A > > and the default gateway for VLAN 1 was on Switch A. From a PC on Switch A > > you could ping the NT server and the default gateway and PIX etc, but the > NT > > server couldn't ping the default gateway. Moving a PC to Switch B > replicated > > the problem, I could ping everything else on the network but not the > default > > gateway. When I checked the switches I could see some errors on the first > > port of the channel, a few align, fcs and runts, I then noticed the port > was > > leaving and joining the spanning tree every 30 seconds or so. Removing the > > cable from the port fixed the problem immediately, when the cable was put > > back the problem occurred after about 3 mins. I removed the ISL trunk and > > put the cable back and it is working and error free for over 12 hours. > > > > I'd love to know exactly what caused this, I think it was the VLAN > > information not being passed down the trunk but I'm not sure and as the > link > > had to be up v.quickly I didn't have time to test a few things out. > > > > cheers > > > > Pat > > > > > > -- > > > > email me on : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=38215&t=38085 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
