Re: Gigabit Ether Channel
One note to correct. Below we selected round-robin rather than standard
mode.
Thanks again.
- Forwarded by Jeff G Kloek/IT/IPAPER on 01/13/2003 06:59 AM -
Jeff G Kloek
To: "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
01/11/2003 07:57 cc:
PM Subject: Re: Gigabit Ether Channel
Our adventure in Etherchannel seems to have been successful.
smitty etherchannel;
Add an Etherchannel
Type or select values in entry fields.
Press Enter AFTER making all desired changes.
[Entry Fields]
Etherchannel Adaptersent0 ent3 ent4 ent5 +
Enable ALTERNATE ETHERCHANNEL addressno +
ALTERNATE ETHERCHANNEL address [] +
Mode standard +
Enable GIGABIT ETHERNET JUMBO frames no +
Internet Address to Ping []
Number of Retries[] #
Retry Timeout (sec) [] #
F1=HelpF2=Refresh F3=Cancel F4=List
F5=Reset F6=Command F10=Edit F8=Image
F9=Shell F10=Exit Enter=Do
The output was
ent6 Available
Then it was as simple as assigning a TCP/IP address to en6.
Testing using FTP from several hosts with Gigabit Ethernet Adapters, we
did:
Ftp to this new adapter's address
ftp> put "|dd if=/dev/zero bs=1024k count=3 " /dev/null
We then watched the entstat -d ent6 output to see the distribution of the
packets.
Thanks for everyone's help.
- Forwarded by Jeff G Kloek/IT/IPAPER on 01/11/2003 07:26 PM -
Jeff G Kloek
To: "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
01/11/2003 01:34 cc:
PM Subject: Re: Gigabit Ether
Channel(Document link: Jeff G Kloek)
Direct from IBM:
A little further research reveals that when you set up etherchannel via the
smitty etherchannel menus you are by default setting up cisco base port
aggregation.
We'll try this later tonight and I'll report on the results.
Thanks for all your help.
"Chris Murphy"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
E.ID.US> cc:
Sent by: "ADSM: Subject: Re: Gigabit Ether Channel
Dist Stor
Manager"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]
.EDU>
01/10/2003 01:25
PM
Please respond to
"ADSM: Dist Stor
Manager"
>>Please hazard a guess on this one: If the adapter doesn't and the channel
doesn't form, does that mean the ip address won't be pingable at all?
Thanks
again for your help - it's much appreciated. Jeff
In my experience, if the channel does not form, the switch has no way of
knowing these 2 (or more) ports go to the same node. Therefore, it will
treat them as two (or more) separate nodes since it will see two different
MAC addresses: one on each port. The IP address assigned to each NIC
should
then be ping-able (asuming all routing/VLANs and such working properly) as
it would as if you were not trying to channel and just had a node with 2
NICs. The only way I can think of this NOT happening, is if:
(a) mis-config of NIC(s) on node e.g. no IP assigned, administratively
downed
(b) the switch is set to FORCE a channel (done with "CHANNEL-GROUP x MODE
ON" or some variation of depending on switch model...). In this case, the
switch will be expecting a channel to form, if one does not, connectivity
may not be established. This can be used to form a channel if the NIC(s)
do
NOT suppport PAgP, or have weak support of, but are still capable of
EtherChannel since no PAgP frames are sent in the "ON" mode.
We had case (b) happen on some Intel NICs we had once. They supported
EtherChannel, but for some reason PAgP did not work. When we set the
channel to "ON" (forced) and it worked. This might be the case with ours.
Hope that helps some!
Chris
Re: Gigabit Ether Channel
Our adventure in Etherchannel seems to have been successful.
smitty etherchannel;
Add an Etherchannel
Type or select values in entry fields.
Press Enter AFTER making all desired changes.
[Entry Fields]
Etherchannel Adaptersent0 ent3 ent4 ent5 +
Enable ALTERNATE ETHERCHANNEL addressno +
ALTERNATE ETHERCHANNEL address [] +
Mode standard +
Enable GIGABIT ETHERNET JUMBO frames no +
Internet Address to Ping []
Number of Retries[] #
Retry Timeout (sec) [] #
F1=HelpF2=Refresh F3=Cancel F4=List
F5=Reset F6=Command F10=Edit F8=Image
F9=Shell F10=Exit Enter=Do
The output was
ent6 Available
Then it was as simple as assigning a TCP/IP address to en6.
Testing using FTP from several hosts with Gigabit Ethernet Adapters, we
did:
Ftp to this new adapter's address
ftp> put "|dd if=/dev/zero bs=1024k count=3 " /dev/null
We then watched the entstat -d ent6 output to see the distribution of the
packets.
Thanks for everyone's help.
- Forwarded by Jeff G Kloek/IT/IPAPER on 01/11/2003 07:26 PM -
Jeff G Kloek
To: "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
01/11/2003 01:34 cc:
PM Subject: Re: Gigabit Ether
Channel(Document link: Jeff G Kloek)
Direct from IBM:
A little further research reveals that when you set up etherchannel via the
smitty etherchannel menus you are by default setting up cisco base port
aggregation.
We'll try this later tonight and I'll report on the results.
Thanks for all your help.
"Chris Murphy"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
E.ID.US> cc:
Sent by: "ADSM: Subject: Re: Gigabit Ether Channel
Dist Stor
Manager"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]
.EDU>
01/10/2003 01:25
PM
Please respond to
"ADSM: Dist Stor
Manager"
>>Please hazard a guess on this one: If the adapter doesn't and the channel
doesn't form, does that mean the ip address won't be pingable at all?
Thanks
again for your help - it's much appreciated. Jeff
In my experience, if the channel does not form, the switch has no way of
knowing these 2 (or more) ports go to the same node. Therefore, it will
treat them as two (or more) separate nodes since it will see two different
MAC addresses: one on each port. The IP address assigned to each NIC
should
then be ping-able (asuming all routing/VLANs and such working properly) as
it would as if you were not trying to channel and just had a node with 2
NICs. The only way I can think of this NOT happening, is if:
(a) mis-config of NIC(s) on node e.g. no IP assigned, administratively
downed
(b) the switch is set to FORCE a channel (done with "CHANNEL-GROUP x MODE
ON" or some variation of depending on switch model...). In this case, the
switch will be expecting a channel to form, if one does not, connectivity
may not be established. This can be used to form a channel if the NIC(s)
do
NOT suppport PAgP, or have weak support of, but are still capable of
EtherChannel since no PAgP frames are sent in the "ON" mode.
We had case (b) happen on some Intel NICs we had once. They supported
EtherChannel, but for some reason PAgP did not work. When we set the
channel to "ON" (forced) and it worked. This might be the case with ours.
Hope that helps some!
Chris
Re: Gigabit Ether Channel
Direct from IBM: A little further research reveals that when you set up etherchannel via the smitty etherchannel menus you are by default setting up cisco base port aggregation. We'll try this later tonight and I'll report on the results. Thanks for all your help. "Chris Murphy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] E.ID.US> cc: Sent by: "ADSM: Subject: Re: Gigabit Ether Channel Dist Stor Manager" <[EMAIL PROTECTED] .EDU> 01/10/2003 01:25 PM Please respond to "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" >>Please hazard a guess on this one: If the adapter doesn't and the channel doesn't form, does that mean the ip address won't be pingable at all? Thanks again for your help - it's much appreciated. Jeff In my experience, if the channel does not form, the switch has no way of knowing these 2 (or more) ports go to the same node. Therefore, it will treat them as two (or more) separate nodes since it will see two different MAC addresses: one on each port. The IP address assigned to each NIC should then be ping-able (asuming all routing/VLANs and such working properly) as it would as if you were not trying to channel and just had a node with 2 NICs. The only way I can think of this NOT happening, is if: (a) mis-config of NIC(s) on node e.g. no IP assigned, administratively downed (b) the switch is set to FORCE a channel (done with "CHANNEL-GROUP x MODE ON" or some variation of depending on switch model...). In this case, the switch will be expecting a channel to form, if one does not, connectivity may not be established. This can be used to form a channel if the NIC(s) do NOT suppport PAgP, or have weak support of, but are still capable of EtherChannel since no PAgP frames are sent in the "ON" mode. We had case (b) happen on some Intel NICs we had once. They supported EtherChannel, but for some reason PAgP did not work. When we set the channel to "ON" (forced) and it worked. This might be the case with ours. Hope that helps some! Chris
Re: Gigabit Ether Channel
>>Please hazard a guess on this one: If the adapter doesn't and the channel doesn't form, does that mean the ip address won't be pingable at all? Thanks again for your help - it's much appreciated. Jeff In my experience, if the channel does not form, the switch has no way of knowing these 2 (or more) ports go to the same node. Therefore, it will treat them as two (or more) separate nodes since it will see two different MAC addresses: one on each port. The IP address assigned to each NIC should then be ping-able (asuming all routing/VLANs and such working properly) as it would as if you were not trying to channel and just had a node with 2 NICs. The only way I can think of this NOT happening, is if: (a) mis-config of NIC(s) on node e.g. no IP assigned, administratively downed (b) the switch is set to FORCE a channel (done with "CHANNEL-GROUP x MODE ON" or some variation of depending on switch model...). In this case, the switch will be expecting a channel to form, if one does not, connectivity may not be established. This can be used to form a channel if the NIC(s) do NOT suppport PAgP, or have weak support of, but are still capable of EtherChannel since no PAgP frames are sent in the "ON" mode. We had case (b) happen on some Intel NICs we had once. They supported EtherChannel, but for some reason PAgP did not work. When we set the channel to "ON" (forced) and it worked. This might be the case with ours. Hope that helps some! Chris
Re: Gigabit Ether Channel
Thank you. I am now checking into whether or not my adapters support that protocol. I can't fathom them not, but this gives me a place to start. Please hazard a guess on this one: If the adapter doesn't and the channel doesn't form, does that mean the ip address won't be pingable at all? Thanks again for your help - it's much appreciated. Jeff "Chris Murphy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] E.ID.US> cc: Sent by: "ADSM: Subject: Re: Gigabit Ether Channel Dist Stor Manager" <[EMAIL PROTECTED] .EDU> 01/10/2003 12:33 PM Please respond to "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" Jeff, We use Etherchannel on some of our servers, none of which are TSM servers (but clients use it) in our case, however. Your NIC's (or drivers more accurately) MUST support PAgP, for the channel to be automatically formed. This is a Cisco protocol that handles the negotiation of the channel and without it, you will be hard pressed to make the channel work! Intel NIC's support PAgP, and I *think* some 3Com ones do, but other than that, I am not sure... Contact me directly if you would like more info. Chris Murphy IT Network Analyst Idaho Dept. of Lands Office: (208) 334-0293 [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: Jeff G Kloek [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 10, 2003 11:06 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Gigabit Ether Channel Has anyone set up Gig Etherchannel to a Cisco Switch? We're about to test this with a P670 on AIX 5.2 with 4 (supported) Gig Ethernet cards. The question from our Wan group in planning the switch changes is, "Do we use PAgP or not?". I talked with IBM, who didn't recognize that protocol. This tells me we're not set up to specifically recognize it, but I'm still putting the question to the experts. I can't see how it would hurt, especially based on what the Cisco site says about it, that it helps in the automatic creation of fast Ethernet Links". Thanks!!
Re: Gigabit Ether Channel
Jeff, We use Etherchannel on some of our servers, none of which are TSM servers (but clients use it) in our case, however. Your NIC's (or drivers more accurately) MUST support PAgP, for the channel to be automatically formed. This is a Cisco protocol that handles the negotiation of the channel and without it, you will be hard pressed to make the channel work! Intel NIC's support PAgP, and I *think* some 3Com ones do, but other than that, I am not sure... Contact me directly if you would like more info. Chris Murphy IT Network Analyst Idaho Dept. of Lands Office: (208) 334-0293 [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: Jeff G Kloek [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 10, 2003 11:06 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Gigabit Ether Channel Has anyone set up Gig Etherchannel to a Cisco Switch? We're about to test this with a P670 on AIX 5.2 with 4 (supported) Gig Ethernet cards. The question from our Wan group in planning the switch changes is, "Do we use PAgP or not?". I talked with IBM, who didn't recognize that protocol. This tells me we're not set up to specifically recognize it, but I'm still putting the question to the experts. I can't see how it would hurt, especially based on what the Cisco site says about it, that it helps in the automatic creation of fast Ethernet Links". Thanks!!
Gigabit Ether Channel
Has anyone set up Gig Etherchannel to a Cisco Switch? We're about to test this with a P670 on AIX 5.2 with 4 (supported) Gig Ethernet cards. The question from our Wan group in planning the switch changes is, "Do we use PAgP or not?". I talked with IBM, who didn't recognize that protocol. This tells me we're not set up to specifically recognize it, but I'm still putting the question to the experts. I can't see how it would hurt, especially based on what the Cisco site says about it, that it helps in the automatic creation of fast Ethernet Links". Thanks!!
