IPS-Portchannel-EtherChannel Load Balancing

I have two 4506 switches and 2 IPS 4260
I have problem med Interfaces unjoin and join portchannel
GigabitEthernet3/23 left the port-channel Port-channel1
GigabitEthernet3/23 joined port-channel Port-channel1
The IPS interfaces
UDVIK01_AWG_IPS# sh interfaces brief
CC   Interface            Sensing State   Link   Inline Mode        Pair Status
*    Management0/0        Disabled        Up
     GigabitEthernet0/1   Disabled        Down   Unpaired           N/A
     GigabitEthernet2/0   Enabled         Up     Inline-vlan-pair   N/A
     GigabitEthernet2/1   Enabled         Up     Inline-vlan-pair   N/A
     GigabitEthernet2/2   Disabled        Down   Unpaired           N/A
     GigabitEthernet2/3   Disabled        Down   Unpaired           N/A
I have uploaded Debug file and other file of my configuration
Best Regard
Rene Rolsted

Debug from switch:
Dec 8 15:11:41.363: FEC: pagp_switch_hotstandby: for agport Po1
Dec 8 15:11:41.363: FEC: pagp_switch_hotstandby: PAgP not enabled on agport Po1
Dec 8 15:11:41.367: FEC: pagp_switch_port_down: Gi3/23 Inform yes
Dec 8 15:11:41.367: FEC: pagp_switch_invoke_port_down: Gi3/23
Dec 8 15:11:41.367: FEC: fec_unbundle: Gi3/23
Dec 8 15:11:41.367: FEC: pagp_switch_change_vgc: gcchngreq == 0 for Gi3/23
Dec 8 15:11:41.367: FEC: pagp_switch_change_vgc: Gi3/23 gcchngreq = 0 gc = 0
Dec 8 15:11:41.367: %EC-5-UNBUNDLE: Interface GigabitEthernet3/23 left the port-channel Port-channel1
Dec 8 15:11:41.367: FEC: pagp_switch_delete_port_from_agport_internal: delete_port_from_agport: for port Gi3/23
Dec 8 15:11:41.367: FEC: delete port (Gi3/23) from agport (Po1)
Dec 8 15:11:41.367: FEC: pagp_switch_delete_port_from_agport_list: afb->nports-- = 1 [Gi3/23]
Dec 8 15:11:41.367: FEC: Un-Bndl msg NOT send to PM for port Gi3/23 from Po1
Dec 8 15:11:41.367: FEC: pagp_switch_reset_load_index: reading load-index for port Po1
Dec 8 15:11:45.363: FEC: pagp_switch_port_up: Gi3/23
Dec 8 15:11:45.363: FEC: pagp_switch_invoke_port_up: Gi3/23
Dec 8 15:11:45.363: FEC: pagp_switch_agc_compatable: comparing GC values of Gi3/23 Gi3/24 flag = 1 1
Dec 8 15:11:45.363: FEC: pagp_switch_port_attrib_diff: Gi3/23 Gi3/24 same
Dec 8 15:11:45.363: FEC: pagp_switch_agc_compatable: GC values are compatable
Dec 8 15:11:45.363: FEC: fec_bundle: Gi3/23
Dec 8 15:11:45.363: FEC: add port (Gi3/23) to agport (Po1)
Dec 8 15:11:45.363: FEC: pagp_switch_add_port_to_agport_list: afb->nports++ = 2 [Gi3/23]
Dec 8 15:11:45.363: %EC-5-BUNDLE: Interface GigabitEthernet3/23 joined port-channel Port-channel1
Dec 8 15:11:45.363: FEC: pagp_switch_add_port_to_agport_internal: msg to PM to bundle port Gi3/23 with Po1
Dec 8 15:11:45.363: FEC: pagp_switch_want_to_bundle: Bndl msg to PM for port Gi3/23 to Agport Po1
Dec 8 15:11:45.363: FEC: pagp_switch_hotstandby: for agport Po1
Dec 8 15:11:45.363: FEC: pagp_switch_hotstandby: PAgP not enabled on agport Po1
Dec 8 15:11:45.367: FEC: pagp_switch_reset_load_index: reading load-index for port Po1
Dec 8 15:12:08.370: FEC: pagp_switch_hotstandby: for agport Po1
Dec 8 15:12:08.370: FEC: pagp_switch_hotstandby: PAgP not enabled on agport Po1
Dec 8 15:12:08.374: FEC: pagp_switch_port_down: Gi3/24 Inform yes
Dec 8 15:12:08.374: FEC: pagp_switch_invoke_port_down: Gi3/24
Dec 8 15:12:08.374: FEC: fec_unbundle: Gi3/24
Dec 8 15:12:08.374: FEC: pagp_switch_change_vgc: gcchngreq == 0 for Gi3/24
Dec 8 15:12:08.374: FEC: pagp_switch_change_vgc: Gi3/24 gcchngreq = 0 gc = 0
Dec 8 15:12:08.374: %EC-5-UNBUNDLE: Interface GigabitEthernet3/24 left the port-channel Port-channel1
Dec 8 15:12:08.374: FEC: pagp_switch_delete_port_from_agport_internal: delete_port_from_agport: for port Gi3/24
Dec 8 15:12:08.374: FEC: delete port (Gi3/24) from agport (Po1)
Dec 8 15:12:08.374: FEC: pagp_switch_delete_port_from_agport_list: afb->nports-- = 1 [Gi3/24]
Dec 8 15:12:08.374: FEC: Un-Bndl msg NOT send to PM for port Gi3/24 from Po1
Dec 8 15:12:08.374: FEC: pagp_switch_reset_load_index: reading load-index for port Po1
Dec 8 15:12:13.362: FEC: pagp_switch_port_up: Gi3/24
Dec 8 15:12:13.362: FEC: pagp_switch_invoke_port_up: Gi3/24
Dec 8 15:12:13.362: FEC: pagp_switch_agc_compatable: comparing GC values of Gi3/24 Gi3/23 flag = 1 1
Dec 8 15:12:13.362: FEC: pagp_switch_port_attrib_diff: Gi3/24 Gi3/23 same
Dec 8 15:12:13.362: FEC: pagp_switch_agc_compatable: GC values are compatable
Dec 8 15:12:13.362: FEC: fec_bundle: Gi3/24
Dec 8 15:12:13.362: FEC: add port (Gi3/24) to agport (Po1)
Dec 8 15:12:13.362: FEC: pagp_switch_add_port_to_agport_list: afb->nports++ = 2 [Gi3/24]
Dec 8 15:12:13.362: %EC-5-BUNDLE: Interface GigabitEthernet3/24 joined port-channel Port-channel1
Dec 8 15:12:13.362: FEC: pagp_switch_add_port_to_agport_internal: msg to PM to bundle port Gi3/24 with Po1
Dec 8 15:12:13.362: FEC: pagp_switch_want_to_bundle: Bndl msg to PM for port Gi3/24 to Agport Po1
Dec 8 15:12:13.362: FEC: pagp_switch_hotstandby: for agport Po1
Dec 8 15:12:13.362: FEC: pagp_switch_hotstandby: PAgP not enabled on agport Po1
Dec 8 15:12:13.366: FEC: pagp_switch_reset_load_index: reading load-index for port Po1

Similar Messages

IPS etherchannel load balancing design

Is it possible to do a etherchannel load balancing with the design attached? i know I need to configure vlan pairs but I'm not sure if it's possible with my current design

Etherchannel design will work with interface pair as well ,provided the design is appropriate to take care of the asymmetry.
Coming to your design, if i understand the requirement correctly, you wish to create etherchannel between 3750 stacked switch and the pair of CAT6K. Enabling VSS on the pair of CAT6K switches and then creating etherchannel should help.But the flow symmetry will not be guaranteed ( meaning the same IPS may not see the forward and the reverse packets of the flow).

Etherchannel Load-Balancing To Host (Confused)

I'm a bit confused as to how an etherchannel load-balances traffic across all the links, in the port-channel. If I have a 4 port etherchannel, to an AIX host, does the traffic load balance across all 4 ports? In reading the load-balancing documentation, it states that a global configuration of src-mac forwards traffic from the same host, over the same port, all the time, whereas it forwards traffic over different ports for other hosts. What if it's the same host tied into the port-channel? So if my AIX box has 4 ethernet cards in a port channel, each ethernet card goes over only one link? If the ethernet cards are bundled, into a port channel config, is there no way to load balance all the traffic? Maybe I'm misunderstanding the etherchannel configuration and how it works. Thanks for any and all help!!
Dan

Port channel is link aggregation for all traffic which will get distributed across all links. A given ip conversation will only travel down one of those links at any given time. The single ip conversation is not carried say for instance across all 4 links if it's a 4 port etherchannel.

Etherchannel load balancing options

Reading up on my Etherchannel load balancing options (src or dst, mac or IP) it seems to me that I don't have a good way of using Etherchannel to increase bandwidth in my situation. In my scenario, I have a Windows terminal server servicing a couple hundred users which are using a SQL database on a 2nd server. Both servers are on the same switch. Basically I only have one MAC and one IP. Is there a way to utilize multiple links in this scenario? It seems like I would need a packet based technique to take advantage of multiple channels and unfortunately that isn't an option with etherchannel. Thoughts?
Thanks,
Diego

Hi Diego,
If I understand you correctly, your scenario is similar to this
200users--Switch===channel===Switch--Server1+2
If that's how it is set up, then you have multiple source addresses with the same destination address. So if you select either 'source' or 'source and destination' as your frame distribution method, then you should have a pretty even distribution of traffic.
HTH,
Bobby
*Please rate helpful posts.

Etherchannel Load balancing

I have three Gigabit aggregated with LACP to a IBM server. When I ask one ftp from this server I saw the performance is around 80 MB/s, if I ask two ftp to different equipmpents the performance is 160 MB/s (it uses 2 of the links of the bundle). However if I ask for three ftp the performance keeps in 160 MB/s although it uses the three links of the bundle. Is there a limit for Cisco? Anyone knows the reason? It seems like we can transmit as maximum at 160 MB/s

Glen is absolutely correct. on layer 2 switches EtherChannel load balancing can use either source-MAC or destination-MAC address forwarding.
With source-MAC address forwarding, when packets are forwarded to an EtherChannel, the packets are distributed across the ports in the channel based on the source-MAC address of the incoming packet. Therefore, to provide load balancing, packets from different hosts use different ports in the channel, but packets from the same host use the same port in the channel. With destination-MAC address forwarding, when packets are forwarded to an EtherChannel, the packets are distributed across the ports in the channel based on the destination host MAC address of the incoming packet. Therefore, packets to the same destination are forwarded over the same port, and packets to a different destination are sent on a different port in the channel.
So with every different source or destination mac it will use a diff link. If there is a session started on a aprticular link for a source to a destination it will keep on using the same link until the session termiantes or link goes down.
HTH, Please rate if it helps.
-amit singh

Etherchannel Load-Balance

Hi All,
I have one Catalyst 6509 connected to Catalyst 4500X-VSS using a Layer 2 Etherchannel.
So, 6509 are using src-dst-ip for Etherchannel Load Balance and 4500X are using src-dst-port.
Anyone knows if this will work fine or if I may have some problem?
Is recommended change that configuration or not?
Tks.

I agree with Karsten, That there would be any problem.
As you know Etherchannel is kind of load sharing among the links...It has its own way of load sharing/balancing the traffic if you leave it to default. (which means you might end up using the same link most often times if you dont change the default load balancing method). Hence we see people change the default method to the one which they want and get the nearest load sharing/balancing over the links utilization.
HTH
REgards
Inayath

EtherChannel load-balance on Catalyst 6500 running CatOS

I know EtherChannel load balancing can use either MAC addresses, IP addresses, or the TCP port numbers.
1 Can I config it to make sure every port under the same Channel group has the same traffic utilization?
2 If one of the Etherchannel physical port has traffic more than its physical bandwidth, why switch can't use another Etherchannel physical port to share the traffic?

Normally it will fairly well balance the traffic . There is no way to make sure each channel is exactly the same utilization wise . You can look at how it is load balanced and make a change from say mac to ip address if it looks like you aren't getting the balance you want . It would be very rare that you are going to fill one port on the channel without filling the rest almost the same .Exceptions would be if you most of your traffic is headed to one place like a certain server , even then if you used ip addresses in both directions as the load balance I think it would balance out pretty good. If it got to that point where one link was almost filled you would have to think about adding another port to the channel . This is a real good page http://www.cisco.com/en/US/tech/tk389/tk213/technologies_tech_note09186a0080094714.shtml

Help choose the appropriate etherchannel load balance method

Hi
I have 2 network architectures :case A and case B (found architecture below)
Case A : one server connected on the switch on each site
Case B : 3 server connected on the switch behind a router on each site
2 site are connected by 2 wireless link :each wireless link have 105 Mbps bandwith (I absolutly need the agregate bandwith 210)
Site headquarter is the principal site and site backup is use to backup data located on the principal site
I use Gbit cisco 2960 switch
I use etherchannel to agregate the 2 switch port (port 1 and port 2) where the 2 wireless link are connected
I configure src-mac for case A but all trafic is send only on one wireless link .
Please help me to choose the more appropriate load balance method to load balance traffic between the 2 link for the case A and for the case B
Please advise
Thanks in advance

Disclaimer
The Author of this posting offers the information contained within this posting without consideration and with the reader's understanding that there's no implied or expressed suitability or fitness for any purpose. Information provided is for informational purposes only and should not be construed as rendering professional advice of any kind. Usage of this posting's information is solely at reader's own risk.
Liability Disclaimer
In no event shall Author be liable for any damages whatsoever (including, without limitation, damages for loss of use, data or profit) arising out of the use or inability to use the posting's information even if Author has been advised of the possibility of such damage.
Posting
Your Case A might be handled by port hashing, but unfortunately most Cisco platforms don't support it.
Your Case B isn't much better, as you only have 3 hosts on each side, and according to your drawing, they are behind routers, so you don't want to use MAC hashes. If you don't have port hashing, next best choice might be src-dest-IP hashing. Again, though, with just 3 hosts, your distribution will likely not be very balanced, especially over shorter time intervals.
To obtain best utilization of your links, you need some kind of better link bonding, such as MLPPP (unfortunately, usually won't scale to FE rates) or a hardware MUX. Next best option, if you could route across the links, would be something like Cisco's OER/PfR which can dynamically load balance.

Unequal Load Balance on Etherchannel (L2/SW3400ME)

Hi, i have a problem with my L2 port-channel between 2 SW ME-3400-24TS-D (12.2(44)SE5), there is a unequal load balance and i don't know how to fixed. Should I change the load balance method?.
All four ports have the same config, except one (int fa0/1 on SW_2) that have this commands:
MAMANIVLN1P1IRA1#SH RUN INT FA0/1 | INC hold
hold-queue 4096 in
hold-queue 4096 out
Should i change this hold-queue config?
Here more outputs where you can see the diference, one link has 2mb and the other link has 60mb,, that's a big diference, i would like to know how to solve this:
SW_1#sh int fa0/9 | inc (Desc|rate)
Description: !!!!!! HACIA SW_2 !!!!!
Queueing strategy: fifo
5 minute input rate 2088000 bits/sec, 2065 packets/sec
5 minute output rate 25000 bits/sec, 46 packets/sec
SW_1#sh int fa0/10 | inc (Desc|rate)
Description: PORTCHANNEL10 HACIA SW_2
Queueing strategy: fifo
5 minute input rate 1905000 bits/sec, 1948 packets/sec
5 minute output rate 63348000 bits/sec, 6095 packets/sec
SW_2#sh int fa0/1 | inc (Desc|rate)
Description: Hacia SW_1_Fa0/9
Queueing strategy: fifo
30 second input rate 27000 bits/sec, 48 packets/sec
30 second output rate 2385000 bits/sec, 1996 packets/sec
SW_2#sh int fa0/2 | inc (Desc|rate)
Description: PORTCHANNEL10 HACIA SW_1
Queueing strategy: fifo
5 minute input rate 63567000 bits/sec, 6114 packets/sec
5 minute output rate 1935000 bits/sec, 1976 packets/sec
more outputs...
SW_1#sh etherchannel load-balance
EtherChannel Load-Balancing Configuration:
src-mac
EtherChannel Load-Balancing Addresses Used Per-Protocol:
Non-IP: Source MAC address
IPv4: Source MAC address
SW_2#sh etherchannel load-balance
EtherChannel Load-Balancing Configuration:
src-mac
EtherChannel Load-Balancing Addresses Used Per-Protocol:
Non-IP: Source MAC address
IPv4: Source MAC address
SW_1#SH MAC ADDress-table INTerface po10 | inc Total
Total Mac Addresses for this criterion: 297
SW_2#SH MAC ADDress-table INTerface po10 | inc Total
Total Mac Addresses for this criterion: 66
In advance thanks for the help.

Normally it will fairly well balance the traffic . There is no way to make sure each channel is exactly the same utilization wise . You can look at how it is load balanced and make a change from say mac to ip address if it looks like you aren't getting the balance you want . It would be very rare that you are going to fill one port on the channel without filling the rest almost the same .Exceptions would be if you most of your traffic is headed to one place like a certain server , even then if you used ip addresses in both directions as the load balance I think it would balance out pretty good. If it got to that point where one link was almost filled you would have to think about adding another port to the channel . This is a real good page http://www.cisco.com/en/US/tech/tk389/tk213/technologies_tech_note09186a0080094714.shtml

IDSM-2 load balancing on inline mode is it possible ..?

Hi there .. I am currenty working on a project and need to find out as to whether etherchanelling load balancing can be configured between several IDSM-2 running on inline mode. The IPS 5.1 admin guide states that it is possible for IOS based switches having the IDSM-2 configured on promiscuous mode, however I have heard that it might also be possible to configure etherchannelling load balance when the IDSM-2 are on inline mode. Any help .. commments will be appreciated .. any links to refer to will be even better
Thanks !!!

To configure EtherChannel load balancing on IDSM-2, you must install Cisco IOS 12.2(18)SXE and have Supervisor Engine 720. Cisco IOS only supports promiscuous IDSM-2 EtherChanneling using VACL capture (not SPAN or monitor). Refer the URL
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/hw/vpndevc/ps4077/products_configuration_guide_chapter09186a008055df92.html#wp1044800

LACP Load Balancing Method

We have two stack of 3750-X switchs interconnected through LACP, and a CheckPoint Firewall connected to one of the stack. The Firewall use a LACP bond to connect to the 3750-X Stack. On the Cisco switches we don't use any Layer3 functionality.
Since the switch are used in Layer2 mode, can we define the a load balancing method that use IP informations ?
For example Can we change the load balancing method from src-mac to src-dst-ip ?
BRgds

Hi,
yes you can choose the method of Load balancing in LACP:
port-channel load-balance {dst-ip | dst-mac | src-dst-ip | src-dst-mac | src-ip | src-mac}
Configure an EtherChannel load-balancing method.
The default is src-mac.
Select one of these load-distribution methods:
•dst-ip—Load distribution is based on the destination-host IP address.
•dst-mac—Load distribution is based on the destination-host MAC address of the incoming packet.
•src-dst-ip—Load distribution is based on the source-and-destination host-IP address.
•src-dst-mac—Load distribution is based on the source-and-destination host-MAC address.
•src-ip—Load distribution is based on the source-host IP address.
•src-mac—Load distribution is based on the source-MAC address of the incoming packet.

Adding a 2nd WFE to a Production Farm - Load balanced using F5 Virtual IPs

Hello all,
In much reading I haven't been able to find a more or less straight answer to this question: I have a small-ish SharePoint farm; 1 WFE, 1 App and a SQL cluster. I need to bring a 2nd web front end into the farm. What I am trying to find
out is, may I install the SharePoint bits and join the new web front end to the farm - without putting the web apps' IPs into my F5 pools - without adversely impacting the farm?
What I'm after is time to test the new web front end by redirecting my browser to it via my hosts file. Once I'm confident all is well, I would then configure WFE2 to have traffic forwarded to it through the F5. Is this a reasonable hope?
Thanks in advance for any advice you might provide

Yes, that will work.
Having an extra WFE that isn't included in your load balancer is actually a fairly common practice when you use it as a dedicated crawl target, there' no impact to having it there unused for a while.
Thanks very much for confirming; I appreciate that!

LOAD BALANCE BEHAVIOR FOR 7600 ON ETHERCHANNELS

Hi Everyone,
Currently I'm planning to implement ether-channels on 7600 routers, but there's something that's still not clear to me, regarding the load balancing behavior, for L2VPN and L3VPN.
I've read that 7600 in MPLS default load balance behavior is to take the SIP and DIP if present and the bottom of the stack label or the 5th label depending upon the number of labels on the stack. In l2VPN scenarios when ether-channel is used, if no IP traffic is present what is the default behavior of the etherchannel to calculate the load balancing hash function to select a given link on the bundle.
I'll appreciate any feedback regarding this.

Hi Louis, you could set default routes on the ASA's with tracking, and use ospf downstream to inject the default route in to the network with default information originate - this will only advertise out a default route if it has it in the routing table. With SLA you can track internet reachability by IP SLA echo to something like 8.8.8.8. Both sides can advertise this in to the network, if one goes then there is one left. Just be mindful of the policies and NAT required, you will have to duplicate the rules on the ASA's. With the NAT you have to ensure, that outgoing traffic comes back in the same path it left so it doesn't break connections.

N5K: PortChannel & Load Balancing

Hello All,
I've configured port-channel for my backup servers and also applied load balancing on the switch (NEXUS 5548 with 2248 FEX). The server is configured with NIC teaming and is set on auto, which negotiates to use 802.3ad for the channel.
All seems to be working fine however the ports do not seem to be balancing the traffic when transmitting unicast traffic as shown from below N5K output:
ChanId      Port     Rx-Ucst Tx-Ucst Rx-Mcst     Tx-Mcst   Rx-Bcst Tx-Bcst
20   Eth102/1/6 52.61% 99.99%    49.45% 63.29% 93.55% 51.27%
20   Eth102/1/5 47.38%   0.00%     50.54% 36.70%   6.44%    48.72%
21   Eth102/1/33 51.25% 99.99% 49.92% 63.01%   15.51%   51.40%
21   Eth102/1/29 48.74% 0.00% 50.07% 36.98%     84.48%   48.59%
The above shows the server is receiving traffic only on one port and not balancing it on another. Server is WIn 2008 R2. These are 1 Gig links with PO are 2 Gig, the backup server needs the 2 Gig but somehow it doesnt seem to utilize the port-channel for incoming traffic.
Currently the load balancing on the N5K platform is set as follows:
N5K# show port-channel load-balance
Port Channel Load-Balancing Configuration:
System: source-dest-port
Port Channel Load-Balancing Addresses Used Per-Protocol:
Non-IP: source-dest-mac
IP: source-dest-port source-dest-ip source-dest-mac
My question here is can i load balance the Tx-Ucst to both ports?
Is there some other way I can utilize both NIC cards on the server to receive traffic?
Any help would be much appreciated.
Thank you.
Regards,
Adnan M F

Adnan,
You seem to be using the recommended hashing algorithm. I would use the "show port-channel load-balance forwarding-path" command to verify that your traffic would actually load balance. Because you mention these are backup servers, I'm concerned there may not be enough entropy in the packets to load balance as you'd like.
example :
show port-channel load-balance forwarding-path interface port-channel 301 vlan 1 src-ip 1.1.1.1 l4-dst-port 80 dst-ip 2.2.2.2 l4-src-port 20000
Missing params will be substituted by 0's.
Load-balance Algorithm on switch: source-dest-ip
crc8_hash: Not Used     Outgoing port id: Ethernet1/9
Param(s) used to calculate load-balance (Unknown unicast, multicast and broadcas
t packets):
        dst-mac: 0000.0000.0000
        vlan id: 1
If the "show port-channel load-balance forwarding-path" commands shows that your traffic should transmit out eth102/1/5 or eth102/1/29, then it's possible you are having bug issues. There are known bugs that were fixed in 5.2(9) and 6.1(4) that affect load balancing.

IDSM-2 - VSS Load Balance

Hi everyone ...
I have two 6509 configured with VSS, in each 6509 we have one FWSM and IDSM2.
We have configured the FWSM with contexts and we have Failover working fine.
Now we want to configure IDMS as IPS inline but we want to use both IDSM in load balance for improve the performance and get high availability with security.
Is this possible ?
I know we can get load balance with IPS appliances using etherchannel in switching (ECLB) but I don't know if we can do this with the IDSM modules in catalyst 6509 considering VSS.
Any suggestions ?

The VSS is a special configuration.
You can configure the FWSM modules to be Failover partners but in IDSM modules you need to configure the same input/output VLANs to get the Failover or balance behaviour. The Cisco IPS architecture has not Failover configuration. you can find some examples with Etherchannels or Port-Channels configuration shared with some IPS units to balance the bandwith. That's the case in VSS solucion, both chasis shared the VLANs and it's necesary to configure the input/output VLANs pairs shared between the modules to balance the bandwith.

IPS-Portchannel-EtherChannel Load Balancing

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for