RE: Dual Link redundancy .... [7:47854]

2002-07-06 Thread Cisco Study
. 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

Re: Dual Link redundancy .... [7:47854]

2002-07-02 Thread Paul
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

RE: Dual Link redundancy .... [7:47854]

2002-07-02 Thread [EMAIL PROTECTED]
:[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

RE: Dual Link redundancy .... [7:47854]

2002-07-02 Thread Michael Williams
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:

RE: Dual Link redundancy .... [7:47854]

2002-07-01 Thread Chris Harshman
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:

RE: Dual Link redundancy .... [7:47854]

2002-07-01 Thread Blair, Philip S
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

RE: Dual Link redundancy .... [7:47854]

2002-07-01 Thread Kohli, Jaspreet
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

RE: Dual Link redundancy .... [7:47854]

2002-07-01 Thread Mark Odette II
] 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

Re: Dual Link redundancy .... [7:47854]

2002-07-01 Thread Michael L. Williams
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

Re: Dual Link redundancy .... [7:47854]

2002-07-01 Thread Michael L. Williams
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