[c-nsp] FW: Cisco blade switch config

[Andrew Miehs]

What does Show interface trunk show?

Sent from a mobile device

On 21/02/2013, at 9:05, "Kevin Berry" <kevin.berry.70 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Etherchannel now shows only the two uplink ports, as below:
> 
> Group  Port-channel  Protocol    Ports
>> ------+-------------+-----------+-------------------------------------
>> ------+-------------+-----------+------
>> ----
>> 1      Po1(SU)         LACP      Gi0/20(P)   Gi0/22(P)
>> 
>> You original show etherchannel had too many ports in the portchannel. Have
> you fixed this yet?
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andrew Miehs [mailto:andrew at 2sheds.de] 
> Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2013 5:03 PM
> To: Kevin Berry
> Cc: <cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net>
> Subject: Re: [c-nsp] FW: Cisco blade switch config
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from a mobile device
> 
> On 21/02/2013, at 8:11, "Kevin Berry" <kevin.berry.70 at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> Yes, I am aware. My HP simply was configured something like:
>> 
>> Config t
>> Trunk 21-22 trk1 lacp
>> Trunk 37-38 trk2 lacp
>> Exit
>> 
>> Then I made sure that those trunks were TAGGED for each VLAN.
>> 
>> The HP switch, appears correct. I believe, even by review Then for 
>> Cisco, I built Etherchannel LACP from ports. My etherchannel summary 
>> now shows that gi 0/20 & 0/22 are in use and bundled in port channel. 
>> So that seems fine.
> 
> 
>> My etherchannel for those ports was built for channel 1, or PO1. 
>> Config
>> reads:
>>> interface Port-channel1
>>> description HP CORE
>>> switchport trunk allowed vlan 1-3,100 switchport mode trunk 
>>> spanning-tree portfast trunk spanning-tree vlan 4-99 cost 20 !
>>> interface GigabitEthernet0/1
>>> switchport trunk allowed vlan 1-3,100 switchport mode trunk speed 
>>> 1000 channel-group 1 mode active spanning-tree portfast !
>>> interface GigabitEthernet0/2
>>> switchport trunk allowed vlan 1-3,100 switchport mode trunk speed 
>>> 1000 channel-group 1 mode active spanning-tree portfast
> 
> You original show etherchannel had too many ports in the portchannel. Have
> you fixed this yet?
> 
>> Now, this being the case, would you not expect these ports to carry 
>> traffic on those vlans (1,2,3,100) ?
>> If I have a ESX host in gi 0/1 and it has vm's on 2 of those vlans, 
>> and 2 virtual switches are configured, one for each ip segment/vlan, 
>> then each VM should send traffic to my uplink ports, in this case gi 
>> 0/20 & 0/22, which will pass all those vlans on to the next switch?
>> 
>> It is odd to me, as port gi 0/1 needs to be able to actually 
>> accommodate multiple vlans, so to me that would be a trunk. Then, to 
>> combine multiple ports to move traffic, I need the etherchannel (with 
>> LACP talking to the HP). It seems this all works fine as long as only 
>> 1 vlan is applied. AS soon as the expectation is for more than one vlan,
> it ceases.
>