As I said, we TRY . The vendors will do their best to scupper us, other things
will come up to b0rk it. But as a rule of thumb its a starting point
(i'm more concerned that other things change such as the MIB value between
different platforms)
alan
On 08/03/12 11:32, Mark Tinka wrote:
We try not to match interface numbers to VLAN ID's. That
works out alright when you're starting out, but as the
network grows, many face-palm and hair-pulling moments :-).
Agreed. Clever numbering schemes can just be misleading when they
don't line up.
-Original Message-
From: cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net
[mailto:cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Mark Tinka
Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2012 6:33 AM
To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] port channel numbering schemes
On Wednesday, March 07, 2012 10:49:50 PM
Hi,
We try not to match interface numbers to VLAN ID's. That
works out alright when you're starting out, but as the
network grows, many face-palm and hair-pulling moments :-).
Agreed. Clever numbering schemes can just be misleading when they
don't line up.
another 'agreed' - however,
2012/3/7 Jared Mauch ja...@puck.nether.net
On Mar 7, 2012, at 9:23 AM, Nick Hilliard wrote:
On 07/03/2012 14:16, chris stand wrote:
thoughts/ideas/concerns
This works fine until you try it on smaller boxes and you find out that
they only support port-channel names up to 48 or
On Friday, March 09, 2012 06:52:03 AM Alan Buxey wrote:
another 'agreed' - however, we do try to use standard
numbers for particular types of port-channel - ie doing
something like ensuring the po1 on an aggregator switch
is ALWAYS the link up to the core (and not a
port-channel to a stack
Hello,
Anyone use clever port channel numbering schemes ?
We have a number of facilities that have access closets that connect
either directly to a 7K or the access closets connect to 5Ks which
then connect to the 7Ks.
I have co-workers who want to take a trunk that might be carrying vlan
On 07/03/2012 14:16, chris stand wrote:
thoughts/ideas/concerns
This works fine until you try it on smaller boxes and you find out that
they only support port-channel names up to 48 or whatever. Then you have a
moment of extreme facepalm and go back to Po1, Po2 and Po3.
Nick
On Mar 7, 2012, at 9:23 AM, Nick Hilliard wrote:
On 07/03/2012 14:16, chris stand wrote:
thoughts/ideas/concerns
This works fine until you try it on smaller boxes and you find out that
they only support port-channel names up to 48 or whatever. Then you have a
moment of extreme facepalm
I think there's definitely value in putting some thought into any
numbering/naming scheme you use anywhere, but the answer you come up
with will depend on your organization and the situation.
If you have excellent documentation systems which are quick and easy
to use and always kept up to date,
+1
We don't have a formal port channel naming schema. I usually use 1-10
for things like ISLs between core and stuff and then start with 11-XXX
for all the port channels to various downstream devices. That said, the
interface description is still the most important part of our gear.
Now on
Hi,
On Wed, Mar 07, 2012 at 08:16:52AM -0600, chris stand wrote:
We have a number of facilities that have access closets that connect
either directly to a 7K or the access closets connect to 5Ks which
then connect to the 7Ks.
I have co-workers who want to take a trunk that might be carrying
12 matches
Mail list logo
