etherchannel

livenliven Member Posts: 918
in CCNA & CCENT
say you have 2 switches and your going to use ports 1 and 2 on both switches to create an ether channel.

Do you have to set encapsulation on both ends?

The example I have (lammles book) shows it on just one end.
encrypt the encryption, never mind my brain hurts.
· Share on FacebookShare on Twitter

Comments

  • cdad2000cdad2000 Member Posts: 323
    Yup, you have to set the trunking mode. There are different mode types like on, negotiate, and auto.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • mikearamamikearama Member Posts: 749
    Absolutely on both ends.

    They don't have to match though... just be compatible. IE, one side could be set to desirable, while the other could be auto.
    There are only 10 kinds of people... those who understand binary, and those that don't.

    CCIE Studies: Written passed: Jan 21/12 Lab Prep: Hours reading: 385. Hours labbing: 110

    Taking a time-out to add the CCVP. Capitalizing on a current IPT pilot project.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • NetstudentNetstudent Member Posts: 1,693 ■■■□□□□□□□
    But never auto on both sides.

    But can't you set switchport trunk encap negotiate? IN this case you would setup the trunks but the actual encapsulation could automatically negotiate? You would only set encapsualtion on one link partner?
    There is no place like 127.0.0.1 BUT 209.62.5.3 is my 127.0.0.1 away from 127.0.0.1!
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • mikearamamikearama Member Posts: 749
    NS... what you describe is trunking, and you're right. What liven is asking about is etherchannel.

    And you're right... auto and auto is a no-no, definately not compatible.
    There are only 10 kinds of people... those who understand binary, and those that don't.

    CCIE Studies: Written passed: Jan 21/12 Lab Prep: Hours reading: 385. Hours labbing: 110

    Taking a time-out to add the CCVP. Capitalizing on a current IPT pilot project.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • phreakphreak Member Posts: 170 ■■□□□□□□□□
    Yep, with auto on both sides they will never negotiate (according to the books).
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • NetstudentNetstudent Member Posts: 1,693 ■■■□□□□□□□
    Gotcha, I think the encapsulation question got me mixed up. Wasn't it you Mike that was asking a while back about port channel numbers not needing to match with link partners, but only on the local bundle? Some discussion with a boss maybe. I think that is a quirky little feature about ethernchannel.
    There is no place like 127.0.0.1 BUT 209.62.5.3 is my 127.0.0.1 away from 127.0.0.1!
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • mikearamamikearama Member Posts: 749
    Yep, ya got me.

    I frequently confuse the negotiation settins for portchannels with trunking... thank god for "?".
    There are only 10 kinds of people... those who understand binary, and those that don't.

    CCIE Studies: Written passed: Jan 21/12 Lab Prep: Hours reading: 385. Hours labbing: 110

    Taking a time-out to add the CCVP. Capitalizing on a current IPT pilot project.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • livenliven Member Posts: 918
    Hey thanks everyone for the nice discussion.
    encrypt the encryption, never mind my brain hurts.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • PashPash Member Posts: 1,600 ■■■■■□□□□□
    Netstudent wrote:
    But never auto on both sides.

    I made that mistake a while back also before our infrastructure went live at customer site. As NS said, don't forget this, its crucial ;)

    There are some good cisco white papers on this, have a search when you have time.

    Cheers,
    DevOps Engineer and Security Champion. https://blog.pash.by - I am trying to find my writing style, so please bear with me.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
Sign In or Register to comment.