Etherchannel between 2900xl e 2950G

Hi folks,
someone could help me?
1- How can I do a configuration of etherchannel in switch 2900XL (C2900XL Software (C2900XL-C3H2S-M), Version 12.0(5)XU)?
Or wich paper show how can I do this etherchannel works between 2950G e 2900XL?
2- If I do etherchannel witch fas 0/1,0/3 and 0/5 in channel-group 1 and another channel-group with fas 0/2,0/4 and 0/6, this works?
thanks in advance,
Renato

This should help.
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/hw/switches/ps607/products_configuration_example09186a0080094789.shtml

Similar Messages

Etherchannel between 2960 switches

Hello All,
I configured etherchannel between two 2960 switches.
Both the switches have SVI with subnet 192.168.2.3 and 192.168.2.4
I have another vlan3 on one of the switch.
so when i created etherchannel between two Gig ports and allowed both the vlans,it gave me an error messg,
Nov 3 12:41:07.332 KSA: %EC-5-CANNOT_BUNDLE2: Gi1/0/19 is not compatible with Gi1/0/20 and will be suspended (vlan mask is different)
Nov 3 12:41:07.339 KSA: %EC-5-CANNOT_BUNDLE2: Gi1/0/19 is not compatible with Po1 and will be suspended (vlan mask is different)
Nov 3 12:41:07.339 KSA: %EC-5-CANNOT_BUNDLE2: Gi1/0/19 is not compatible with Po1 and will be suspended (vlan mask is different)
Nov 3 12:41:07.339 KSA: %EC-5-CANNOT_BUNDLE2: Gi1/0/20 is not compatible with Po1 and will be suspended (vlan m
May i know why....
Thanks

Hello Mudasir
This will be a problem of allowed vlan mismatch. All the interfaces which are going to add in the etherchannel must have same allowed vlan on both sides.
You can check for the allowed vlan on all the interfaces as well as on Port-channel.
You can see the below forum having the same problem:
https://supportforums.cisco.com/discussion/9757346/etherchannel-prob
Regards,
Mukesh Kumar
Network Engineer
Spooster IT Services

EtherChannel between 6006 (catos) and Catalyst 2960 HELP

Hi All,
I want to create an etherchannel between 6006 (catos) and Catalyst 2960 to have failover and load balace.
My ports on 6006 (catos) 6/37,6/47 and on 2960 giga 0/1 and giga 0/2.
I have checked on 6006 it supports channel.
Please help to configure this.
Thanks,
AS

AS
Use this doc as a guide and if you have further questions please come back -
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/tech/tk389/tk213/technologies_configuration_example09186a0080094953.shtml#specialconsid
Jon

Fast EtherChannel between Catalyst 3750 and 2821 Router

Hi Guys
I'm trying to setup a Fast EtherChannel between a cat3750-smi and a 2821 router that consists of only 2 links.
I am following instructions per TAC, but I'm getting an error along the way;
On the cat3750:
interface port-channel 1
no switchport
Command Rejected: Not a convertable port
Can anyone help???
Also... do the IP Addresses for the EtherChannel need to be the same for both port-channels? Or do I assign the switch like 192.168.1.1 and the router 192.168.1.2 ?
Thanks!
Adam

Hi Adam,
The ip address cannot be same but it should belong to same subnet. So one side 192.168.1.1 and other side 192.168.1.2 will work fine.
Its better to convert your layer 2 port as a layer port fist so what you do the port which you want to be port channel go that that interface and convert with "switchport" command
once it is a layer 3 port configure with channel group and automatically layer 3 port channel will be created and you can sssign an ip address then.
Just give a try and update if it works.
Regards,
Ankur

Etherchannel between two 2950 switches

I have a etherchannel defined between 2 L2 switches using LACP as shown below. The etherchannel works fine, however when I hard code speed/duplex on both ends the etherchannel fails. What is causing this behaviour?
SW02:
interface Port-channel5
interface GigabitEthernet1/0/1
switchport mode trunk
channel-group 5 mode active
interface GigabitEthernet1/0/2
switchport mode trunk
channel-group 5 mode active
SW02:
interface Port-channel5
interface GigabitEthernet1/0/1
switchport mode trunk
channel-group 5 mode active
interface GigabitEthernet1/0/2
switchport mode trunk
channel-group 5 mode active

Thank you for the rating.
Regarding your replacement scenario, I'll give the standard engineering answer ("it depends"), but actually follow up with something I hope is more helpful. I'm sincerely interested to see other's viewpoint on this as well, as it has changed over the years.
Many years ago (let's say a decade) I ran into problems with some devices not being able to auto-negotiate properly. There was a tendancy for devices to fail or negotiate to half-duplex mode when a full-duplex connection was warranted. At the time, the problems we experienced were mainly with traffic shaping devices and some other gear. There were others using fixed settings as a standard practice, and we did the same since we had verifiable issues.
Fast forward to now. I personally have not experienced auto-negotiation problems in a long time and am reading more from others in the field that auto-negotiation is the way to go (such as from the link provided). Indeed, I've now run into the opposite scenario: I had a particular situation where a link between two devices defaulted to half-duplex EVEN THOUGH they were both set to 100/Full. It turned out to be a race condition between a device and a Cisco router...the other device booted faster, didn't see anything on the link, and "helpfully" dropped down to half-duplex. I confirmed the issue with the device vendor, who recommended setting ports to auto-negotiate as the fix (their software would not be updated for a bit of time).
I would recommend auto-negotiate as a standard practice, with the exception of areas where you have encountered specific problems. Those latter cases should be caught through your pre-deployment testing, and discussed with the respective vendors so that you fully understand why the devices are behaving the way they are so that the proper mitigation measures can be put in place (i.e. - It is going to act the same way every time, and you can work with that).
Good luck! -Ed

Gig etherchannel between 3508XL and 4507R

Anyone out there doing this? I can get the channel to come up, but the 3508 can only seem to pass traffic on whichever link of the two in the channel comes up first. The 2nd link shows no STP running as I expect it should (based on doing this between a 3550-12G and the 4507R). The result is that I lose connectivity to half the devices attached to the 3508XL (the ones whose traffic is trying to traverse the 2nd link, I would guess).
Cisco TAC hasn't been able to help.
Mike

Hi Mike,
That does sound like a STP problem.
Does 'show spanning-tree blocked ports' show that any of the channel ports are blocking (at either end) ?
And 'show etherchannel port-channel' shows 2 ports in the bundle and both up ?
Thats the kind of thing i would expect to see if the channel was not operating correctly, in which case STP would block one port.
Cheers
Shaun

Conecting etherchannel between cisco catalyst 6509 and hp procourve 9308

Impossible to connet 2 ports 1000base sx agrouped via etherchannel / lacp or pagp between a catalyst 6509 and a hp procourve 9308. Please do you know he best configuration? thanks in advance

Hola Luis,
the link would have to be LACP (since PAgP is Cisco proprietary). So, on the Cisco side, the config should look like this:
interface GigabitEthernet0/1
switchport trunk encapsulation dot1q
switchport mode trunk
channel-group 1 mode on
interface GigabitEthernet0/2
switchport trunk encapsulation dot1q
switchport mode trunk
channel-group 1 mode on
interface Port-channel1
switchport trunk encapsulation dot1q
switchport mode trunk
On the HP side, check how the trunk group is configured there. I assume you have used the ´trunk deploy´ command after configuring the HP trunk group ? Also, which spanning-tree mode do you have running on the Cisco and the HP ?
Saludos,
GP

EtherChannel between cisco devices need help

Hello,
At our company we use 2 asa 5525 firewalls in active/standby mode.
Both of them are connected to a single cisco router.
The goal is to have the cisco router to automatically send traffic to the active firewall (regardless which firewall is active at that point).
To solve this would it be possible to create an EtherChannel with 2 ports on the cisco router and then have 1 link going to the active firewall and 1 link to the standby firewall.
If the active firewall fails and the standby firewall takes over, will the standby firewall receive all the traffic that normally would go to the active firewall without any downtime?
Will this work or does another solution exists for this? Its important for us that the hosts on the network suffer small to none downtime at all.
The topology can be found in the following image.

Hello
"You could possibly use bridging on the router which would allow you to have two interfaces on the same router in the same IP subnet and connect one interface to the active firewall and one to the standby. But i cannot say for sure this would work as i have never done it with ASAs"
Please see below:
ASA1
====
.interface GigabitEthernet0
nameif inside1
security-level 100
ip address 192.168.1.10 255.255.255.0
ASA2
====
.interface GigabitEthernet0
nameif inside2
security-level 100
ip address 192.168.1.11 255.255.255.0
router
=====
bridge irb
bridge 100 protocol ieee
bridge 100 route ip
interface FastEthernet0/0
Description Link to ASA1
bridge-group 100
interface FastEthernet0/1
Description Link to ASA2
bridge-group 100
interface BVI100
ip address 192.168.1.254 255.255.255.0
R1#ping 192.168.1.10
Type escape sequence to abort.
Sending 5, 100-byte ICMP Echos to 192.168.1.10, timeout is 2 seconds:
Success rate is 100 percent (5/5), round-trip min/avg/max = 12/34/72 ms
R1#ping 192.168.1.11
Type escape sequence to abort.
Sending 5, 100-byte ICMP Echos to 192.168.1.11, timeout is 2 seconds:
Success rate is 100 percent (5/5), round-trip min/avg/max = 8/38/88 ms
asa1# ping 192.168.1.11
Type escape sequence to abort.
Sending 5, 100-byte ICMP Echos to 192.168.1.11, timeout is 2 seconds:
Success rate is 100 percent (5/5), round-trip min/avg/max = 1/1/1 ms
asa1#ping 192.168.1.254
Type escape sequence to abort.
Sending 5, 100-byte ICMP Echos to 192.168.1.254, timeout is 2 seconds:
Success rate is 100 percent (5/5), round-trip min/avg/max = 10/34/50 ms
NOTE:
You can also NOT apply an ip address to the BVI interface and you would still be able to ping between the FW'S
res
Paul

10G etherchannel between 4510 and 3850 - NO Link

I'm pulling my hair out on a simple issue, and I could use some advice. Thank you, in advance.
I've got a core 4510 switch with 2 12-port 10GE SFP+ modules and my closet has a stack of 3 3850-48p with 2 4-port C3850-NM-2-10G modules.
I'm using 4 SFP-10Gb-SR SFP's to create an ether-channel between these two switches.
The fiber between them is OM4 cable, and OM3 patch cables.
The distance is about 90 Meters.
I've got po8 created on the 4510 through te1/8 and te2/8. On the 3850, i've got po8 created on te1/1/4 and te3/1/4. My problem is that I cannot get a link light at all between these ports. Absolutely nothing indicating when i hook it up. I've tested all the patch cables using loop backs and they all respond. I can even loop back through the complete length of the fiber and i get a link light then also. When i hook them up together, the log on the 4510 starts throwing Rx power low alarms with an Operating value of -29.5 dBm.
I've had Cisco's support go through and verify my port-channel configuration, and they found it to be correct.
I'm starting to wonder if there is larger forces at work here. Am i bumping into a compatibility issue?
Any help would be appreciated.

I've removed the interfaces from the etherchannel and tried cross looping. On the 4510 I get no indication from the LEDs. On the 3850 I get immediate indication on the LEDs.
One might conclude, Cisco support included, that the SFPs on the 4510 side were bad and should be replaced. I hesitate to conclude this because, while members of the etherchannel, i get link lights when looping immediately. Its only when setting the 4510 interfaces back to default and outside the etherchannel that i don't get a response.

Etherchannel between 2900 and 7200

Hello,
We have Etherchannel trunk set up between Catalyst 2924 switch and 7200 router. The trunk consists of 2 links with source-based forwarding, STP disabled on switch and on the router. For some reason, we can't achieve load-balancing on the trunk, that is, one link is currently used at 100%, another at 20%. We would like to achieve 50/50 utilization. Is it possible to do?
Thanks !
Konstantine

The Etherchannel trunk consists of 0/11 and 0/12 interfaces.Here's the output from "Show interface" command on a switch:
FastEthernet0/11 is up, line protocol is up
Hardware is Fast Ethernet, address is 0001.96bb.51cb (bia 0001.96bb.51cb)
MTU 1500 bytes, BW 100000 Kbit, DLY 100 usec,
reliability 255/255, txload 219/255, rxload 49/255
Encapsulation ARPA, loopback not set
Keepalive not set
Full-duplex, 100Mb/s, 100BaseTX/FX
ARP type: ARPA, ARP Timeout 04:00:00
Last input 2w6d, output 00:00:40, output hang never
Last clearing of "show interface" counters 5w0d
Queueing strategy: fifo
Output queue 0/40, 0 drops; input queue 0/75, 0 drops
5 minute input rate 19376000 bits/sec, 7347 packets/sec
5 minute output rate 86004000 bits/sec, 8 packets/sec
FastEthernet0/12 is up, line protocol is up
Hardware is Fast Ethernet, address is 0001.96bb.51cc (bia 0001.96bb.51cc)
MTU 1500 bytes, BW 100000 Kbit, DLY 100 usec,
reliability 255/255, txload 22/255, rxload 58/255
Encapsulation ARPA, loopback not set
Keepalive not set
Full-duplex, 100Mb/s, 100BaseTX/FX
ARP type: ARPA, ARP Timeout 04:00:00
Last input 00:00:08, output 00:00:01, output hang never
Last clearing of "show interface" counters 5w0d
Queueing strategy: fifo
Output queue 0/40, 0 drops; input queue 0/75, 0 drops
5 minute input rate 22747000 bits/sec, 7947 packets/sec
5 minute output rate 8678000 bits/sec, 2548 packets/sec
As you can see, the output rate on interface 0/11 is 300 times lower than on 0/12 and that is our main problem. We have a web farm here (around 100 servers), which is connected via Layer 4 switch to 2924 and then, via Etherchannel trunk, to 7200 router which is default gateway. We tried to use destination-based forwarding (on a switch), but that didn't change anything. The router AFAIK doesn't have any settings to change the forwarding.

Etherchannel between stack switches[3750] and standalone switch[3560]

Hi,
I have 2*3750 switches in stack as core and 1*3560 switch in access layer. I want to enable ether channel between stack switch[3750A & 3750B] and 3560 switches.
Have connected 2 links from 3560 switch to stack switch, one link to 3750A and other link to 3750B. Will it work in this way as per my requirement?
or i should enabled stacking on 3560 switch too and configure cross-stack ether channel between 3750 stack and 3560 stack. i refered few cisco documents, but the cross stack etherchannel configuration example has 3750 at both end stacks.
Rgds...
VikramS

Hi,
This should work fine as per you set up, the 3750 stack will be acting as one switch, which means that the ether-channel configuration should be straight forward. There is no need to stack the 3560 for this to work, also the 3560 are not stackable.
Hope this helps.

Etherchannel between 2 pair of APs

Hi,
Any one configured etherchannel at a single switch across 2 pairs of AP with 5Ghz as backhaul? Does it work?
Topology
switch ----- AP1 --------- backhaul 5Ghz ---- AP3 ---- switch 2
(etherchannel) ------AP2 --------- backhaul 5Ghz ---- AP4 ---- (etherchannel)

Theoretically but throughput also depends on your wireless backhaul since packets can only go over one bridge link. Will you get 300mbps connection. Maybe or maybe not. Wireless is half duplex so really 150mbps actual throughput per wireless link so theoretical 300mbps.
Sent from Cisco Technical Support iPhone App

Gigabit EtherChannel between 6509 and Intel Pro/1000 MTx

I am trying to configure gigabit etherchannel to connect our backup server with a 6509. The Intel Pro/1000 MT nic in the server has two gigabit ports and supports teaming using LACP. I have configured two gig ports on the 6509 as layer 2 etherchannel ports ( channel-group 2 mode active ). The switch ports always show up as disabled. I can't seem find any documentaion on connecting server to switch using etherchannel ( although the Intel Pro MT nic documentaion does mention it ). Does anyone have experience doing this ?

We always just use load balancing on the Intel NICs and do nothing with the switch but make sure that the ports are in the correct vlan.
We have been using this for over 3 years flawlessly.
Our switches are a Cat4006 and Cat4506.

EtherChannel between stacked VSS Catalyst 4500X and Stacked 2960X.

I can have only one link in the EhterChannel up but the 2nd one goes in to suspended mode.
I've tried recreating channel group on different ports but with the same results. Am I doing something wrong or pagp cannot be transmitted over stacks on both ends (I have quite a few EtherChannels but all to single/non-stacked switches)?
2960X stack config
Version: 15.0 (2r)EX
interface TenGigabitEthernet2/0/2
description HR-Link1
switchport mode trunk
switchport nonegotiate
channel-group 2 mode on
interface TenGigabitEthernet1/0/2
description HR-Link2
switchport mode trunk
switchport nonegotiate
channel-group 2 mode on
4500X Stack (VSS) config
Version: 03.04.00.SG (fc3)
interface TenGigabitEthernet1/1/12
description MO-Link1
switchport mode trunk
switchport nonegotiate
shutdown
channel-group 12 mode on
interface TenGigabitEthernet2/1/12
description MO-Link2
switchport mode trunk
switchport nonegotiate
shutdown
channel-group 12 mode on
Thank you,
T

Thanks for reply!
I have tried desirable mode as well but no luck. I can work on this only during the weekend as downtime is not an option.
These two 10G links were just installed last weekend and one patch cable I had to replace due to complete lack of connectivity (small shop so we no fiber testing equipment).
I did not do a lot of troubleshooting last weekend but I will dig in to that this weekend. I was hoping to get some insight from people who work with this on daily basis.
Post from about a year ago got me worried: https://supportforums.cisco.com/discussion/12072281/4500-x-vss-mec-2960-x-stack
Thanks again.
T

Etherchannel between wism and C6509

Hi, when we adding vlans on wism
Thats vlans do not appear in configuration on etherchannel and interfaces.
cisco WS-C6509-V-E Cisco IOS Software, s72033_rp Software (s72033_rp-ADVENTERPRISEK9_WAN-M), Version 12.2(33)SXJ6, RELEASE SOFTWARE (fc3)
WS-SVC-WISM2-K9 7.6.130.0

im find, it's bug https://tools.cisco.com/bugsearch/bug/CSCuj96561

Etherchannel between 2900xl e 2950G

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for