Etherchannel output ...asking for help

assem1999

,Hello all I have cisco switch 6509 e connected to juniper T320 when I make show etherchannel summery , i have
Group Port-channel Protocol Ports

---

+

---

+

---

+

---

2 Po2(SD) LACP Gi3/9(I) Gi3/10(I) Gi3/11(I)
why it is not SU, what is going to be the problem, what does this output means ?? can you help with that?

ColbyG

It means the ports are in standalone mode. Post the config from both sides.

cisco_trooper

The interfaces on the T320 are not bundled properly. Make sure LACP is active on both sides for best performance, or just turn the ether-channels on. It drives me nuts when people needlessly use aggregation protocols.

assem1999

s

cisco_trooper wrote: »

The interfaces on the T320 are not bundled properly. Make sure LACP is active on both sides for best performance, or just turn the ether-channels on. It drives me nuts when people needlessly use aggregation protocols.

Thanks for your answer , aggregation protocols are needed , instead to buy 10G cards in both sides , this is a cost wise...
regarding to the output LACP is shown in the output which mean there are active....??? besides, the config in cisco it is on ..?

cisco_trooper

What I mean is that you can create an ether-channel without using an aggregation protocol such as LACP or PaGP. If you are going to be using LACP you need to make sure the T320 LACP configuration is correct. I would get rid of LACP unless you have a specific need for using it. It's just one more negotiation that has to take place.

ColbyG

I use LACP whenever possible. That negotiation can save your network. I've seen misconfigured static etherchannels take a data center down twice.

cisco_trooper

ColbyG wrote: »

I use LACP whenever possible. That negotiation can save your network. I've seen misconfigured static etherchannels take a data center down twice.

Really? Can you provide any details about this? I guess I tend to trust my own configurations on these and haven't worried about it.

ColbyG

I trust mine as well, but in this case we some gear from a vendor in our environment. We brought up a static channel to them, our side was configured, they said theirs was as well, but it wasn't. His switch has two individual links, mine is a single logical link. Hello, loop. We should have seen errdisable with for port channel misconfiguration, but we didn't. This took the DC down. Similar thing the second time, but it was a channel to a blade center.

It's not my config that I worry about, it's the other side when I don't control it, or the people who come after me. IMO, there's really no reason NOT to use LACP.

cisco_trooper

Yikes. I suppose having to deal with an incorrect LACP configuration is better than dealing with that. I just may change my standards.
Thanks Colby.

ColbyG

No problem. It's a Cisco recommendation to use negotiation for port channels (they say PAgP, if available, and LACP, if not. I always choose LACP). So it's a good practice to consider.

Cisco wrote:

Cisco recommends that you enable PAgP on channel connections between Cisco switches. When channeling two devices that do not support PAgP but support LACP, the recommendation is to enable LACP with the configuration of LACP active on both ends of the devices.

Best Practices for Catalyst 6500/6000 Series...