Huh? Why would you need VLAN trunking to utilize Etherchannel? They're two independant technologies (that can be combined if you wish). We have Etherchannel configured between many switches that aren't trunk links (i.e. only carrying VLAN1). (and it would also be a pain to configure an EtherChannel connection to a router if you only want that router in a single VLAN if you had to trunk)
>From Cisco's website: (watch for wrap) http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/lan/cat6000/sft_6_1/configgd /channel.htm#xtocid141809 "EtherChannels can be configured as trunks. After a channel has been formed, configuring any port in the channel as a trunk applies the configuration to all ports in the channel. Identically configured trunk ports can be configured as an EtherChannel." "If you configure the EtherChannel as a trunk, configure the same trunk mode on all the ports in the EtherChannel. Configuring ports in an EtherChannel in different trunk modes can have unexpected results." If you needed trunking for Etherchannel to work, then why would the above say "After a channel has been formed . . ." and "If you configure EtherChannel as a trunk . . ."? Mike W. "Mark Odette II" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > Yeppers! Without Trunking, you can't perform the redundancy. > > What VLANS you decide to carry across those trunks are your choice. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=47916&t=47854 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
