RE: Dual Link redundancy .... [7:47854]
Hi Paul, Looks like it is IOS based switch then you have to try some thing like this.. int Fast x/x speed 100 duplex full switchport trunk encapsulation YYY wrote: Hi Paul, The 3524-XL is not a set based switch. It is an IOS based switch. The commands would be different. Don't have access to internet / documentation right now but it would be done under each 'interface' ie. Fastethernet 0/2 etc Thanks Manish -Original Message- From: Paul [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 02 July 2002 12:20 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Dual Link redundancy [7:47854] Can't I use the port group 1 distribution destination on both switches ??? I tried using set trunk ... but the switch did'nt understand the command ... the switch is running Version 12.0(5.3) and it is a WS-C3524-XL. I tried running the set trunk command from global config and int config mode do I assume that this will only run on a router and not a switch ??? and if so .. do I need to use the port group 1 distribution destination on both switches ??? Thankx Paul ... - Original Message - From: Chris Harshman To: Sent: Monday, July 01, 2002 7:58 PM Subject: RE: Dual Link redundancy [7:47854] Configure both links as trunks then form an ether-channel. Both links will pass traffic but a failure of one will not affect the other. Cisco Example: set trunk 1/1 dot1q on set trunk 1/2 dot1q on set port channel 1/1-2 on Do You Yahoo!? New! SBC Yahoo! Dial - 1st Month Free unlimited access Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=48246t=47854 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Dual Link redundancy .... [7:47854]
Can't I use the port group 1 distribution destination on both switches ??? I tried using set trunk ... but the switch did'nt understand the command ... the switch is running Version 12.0(5.3) and it is a WS-C3524-XL. I tried running the set trunk command from global config and int config mode do I assume that this will only run on a router and not a switch ??? and if so .. do I need to use the port group 1 distribution destination on both switches ??? Thankx Paul ... - Original Message - From: Chris Harshman To: Sent: Monday, July 01, 2002 7:58 PM Subject: RE: Dual Link redundancy [7:47854] Configure both links as trunks then form an ether-channel. Both links will pass traffic but a failure of one will not affect the other. Cisco Example: set trunk 1/1 dot1q on set trunk 1/2 dot1q on set port channel 1/1-2 on Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=47929t=47854 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Dual Link redundancy .... [7:47854]
Hi Paul, The 3524-XL is not a set based switch. It is an IOS based switch. The commands would be different. Don't have access to internet / documentation right now but it would be done under each 'interface' ie. Fastethernet 0/2 etc Thanks Manish -Original Message- From: Paul [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 02 July 2002 12:20 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Dual Link redundancy [7:47854] Can't I use the port group 1 distribution destination on both switches ??? I tried using set trunk ... but the switch did'nt understand the command ... the switch is running Version 12.0(5.3) and it is a WS-C3524-XL. I tried running the set trunk command from global config and int config mode do I assume that this will only run on a router and not a switch ??? and if so .. do I need to use the port group 1 distribution destination on both switches ??? Thankx Paul ... - Original Message - From: Chris Harshman To: Sent: Monday, July 01, 2002 7:58 PM Subject: RE: Dual Link redundancy [7:47854] Configure both links as trunks then form an ether-channel. Both links will pass traffic but a failure of one will not affect the other. Cisco Example: set trunk 1/1 dot1q on set trunk 1/2 dot1q on set port channel 1/1-2 on Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=47930t=47854 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Dual Link redundancy .... [7:47854]
Off of the top of my head, I'd say something like this: interface FastEthernet 0/1 channel-group 1 mode [auto | desirable | on] interface FastEthernet 0/2 channel-group 1 mode [auto | desirable | on] interface Port-Channel 1 HTH, Mike W. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=47931t=47854 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dual Link redundancy .... [7:47854]
I have two switches that will be connected over fibre ... two connections at each end (hope you like the top Ascii art :)) | 1 |---| 1 | | A | | B | |_2 _|---|_2_ | How can I fix it so that if A1-B1 goes down A2-B2 automatically becomes active ?? Or even use both links to load balance and hence take the full load if the other falls over . Regards Paul ... Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=47854t=47854 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Dual Link redundancy .... [7:47854]
Configure both links as trunks then form an ether-channel. Both links will pass traffic but a failure of one will not affect the other. Cisco Example: set trunk 1/1 dot1q on set trunk 1/2 dot1q on set port channel 1/1-2 on Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=47866t=47854 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Dual Link redundancy .... [7:47854]
Check out Fast Etherchannel (watch for wrapping) http://www.cisco.com/warp/customer/cc/techno/media/lan/ether/channel/tech/fe tec_wp.htm -Original Message- From: Paul [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, July 01, 2002 2:05 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Dual Link redundancy [7:47854] I have two switches that will be connected over fibre ... two connections at each end (hope you like the top Ascii art :)) | 1 |---| 1 | | A | | B | |_2 _|---|_2_ | How can I fix it so that if A1-B1 goes down A2-B2 automatically becomes active ?? Or even use both links to load balance and hence take the full load if the other falls over . Regards Paul ... Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=47865t=47854 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Dual Link redundancy .... [7:47854]
Do we need to setup trunks if we have default VLAN1 running only . -Original Message- From: Chris Harshman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, 2 July 2002 6:59 a.m. To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Dual Link redundancy [7:47854] Configure both links as trunks then form an ether-channel. Both links will pass traffic but a failure of one will not affect the other. Cisco Example: set trunk 1/1 dot1q on set trunk 1/2 dot1q on set port channel 1/1-2 on Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=47904t=47854 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Dual Link redundancy .... [7:47854]
Yeppers! Without Trunking, you can't perform the redundancy. What VLANS you decide to carry across those trunks are your choice. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Kohli, Jaspreet Sent: Monday, July 01, 2002 8:37 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Dual Link redundancy [7:47854] Do we need to setup trunks if we have default VLAN1 running only . -Original Message- From: Chris Harshman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, 2 July 2002 6:59 a.m. To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Dual Link redundancy [7:47854] Configure both links as trunks then form an ether-channel. Both links will pass traffic but a failure of one will not affect the other. Cisco Example: set trunk 1/1 dot1q on set trunk 1/2 dot1q on set port channel 1/1-2 on Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=47912t=47854 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Dual Link redundancy .... [7:47854]
No... you don't. You can simply configure an Etherchanell that only carries VLAN1 only if you want more than 1 VLAN on the switches to you need a trunk. Mike W. Kohli, Jaspreet wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... Do we need to setup trunks if we have default VLAN1 running only . Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=47914t=47854 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Dual Link redundancy .... [7:47854]
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=7i=47916t=47854 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
