[c-nsp] Catalyst port groups with trunk ports in between

[Ryan Dorman]

A port-channel can either be a VLAN access or a trunk.  It could carry a
single VLAN or multiple VLAN's to be the redistributed to other trunks or
access ports on the customer switch.  Once the virtual interface has been
created by adding ports to the trunk the switch and the programming treats
it just like any other interface.

I think that's what you were asking.

Ryan Dorman
Millersville University

On 3/30/06 1:08 PM, "Eric Kagan" <ekagan at axsne.com> wrote:

>>> From a design perspective, the bonding of two ethernet ports is done
>>> from
>> your equipment to the customer equipment on both sides,
>> something like this.
>> 
>> 
>>      Port A ---- Port A                         Port A --- Port A
>> Cust Switch      Your Switch - Gig Trunk - Your Switch     Cust Switch
>>      Port B ---- Port B                         Port B --- Port B
>> 
>> In the above, you would set the Port A/Port A and Port B/Port
>> B up as your channel groups using the appropriate
>> configuration (trunk or no trunk) for the configuration.  As
>> long as the configuration of the ports matches on both sides
>> you should be good to go.
> 
> Can the port group be part of a separate VLAN from the switch ?  In most
> cases I read, the port group is used for making a 200mb bonded connection
> between 2 switches (assuming all other devices on the same switch are the
> end points).  In my case, the port group is a separate VLAN just for a
> handoff.  None of the other devices are in our switches.
> 
>> 
>> I'm assuming you want to run multiple GigE links across a
>> single set of fibers.  If you can get more fiber then you can
>> just build another Port Channel group across the two GigE
>> connections using standard GBICS. If you need to run across
>> one set of fibers you will have to go with another solution
>> such as CWDM, DWDM, 1310/1550 single-fiber transceivers, etc.
> 
> No, we have the 2 existing fibers terminated in the switch as the trunk
> port.  We are just carving out separate 100mb Eth VLANs for different
> purposes.   In this case we want to bond 2 of the 100mb ports.
> 
> Does this make sense ?
> 
> Thanks
> Eric
> 
>> 
>> Hope that helps!
>> 
>> Mike
>> 
>> 
>> On 3/28/06 4:57 PM, "Eric Kagan" <ekagan at axsne.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> We have the following setup, sample config below.
>>>  
>>> We have 2 Data Centers connected via Dark Fiber terminated
>> on Catalyst 
>>> switches with GBIC's - Gig port is a trunk.
>>>  
>>> We have a customer with equipment in both locations so we
>> hand him a 
>>> 100mb ethernet on his own VLAN.  It been working fine for a year.
>>>  
>>> The customer is pushing the 100mb port and wants 200mb (or
>> GB).  Since 
>>> these are Catalyst 3500XL L2 devices I cannot rate limit or police
>>> traffic, so I don't want to give them the 2nd GB port on the switch
>>> for fear they will suck up all the bandwidth (they are doing data
>>> replication of terabytes of data so I could see this
>> happening).  We 
>>> do not want to upgrade the switches right now so my idea was add
>>> another 100mb port and bond them together.
>>>  
>>> So.......we tried a bunch of different configurations and all hell
>>> broke loose.  They configured port groups on both their switches at
>>> each site.  I tried adding the 2nd FE to the same VLAN 5, no good.
>>> Diff VLAN 6, no good. I created port groups on both of our
>> switches to 
>>> see if we could do a local-local bonding, no good. (We would get
>>> either no connectivity across, VLAN mismatches, Relearn
>> Addr errors, 
>>> etc).  Are we breaking this by being in the middle with VLAN's vs.
>>> regular ethernet cables ?  Can this work ? Has anyone ever
>> done this ?
>>>  
>>> If we want to hand then 200mb, what do we need to do on the 2 fiber
>>> trunk switches ?  If I can prove out our side, then they
>> need to prove 
>>> out theirs. (The unknown is whether the customer equipment
>> would even 
>>> work back to back directly regardless of us in the middle)
>>>  
>>>  
>>> Do all 4 switches need a port group (Side A cust - Side A
>> us - fiber 
>>> trunk - Side B us - Side B Cust) where we talk to them at each site
>>> with a port group ?  Do they still need their own VLAN ?
>>>  
>>> or should we be able to just add the 2nd FE to same VLAN 5
>> ? or hand 
>>> 2nd FE on seperate VLAN (i.e. 6) so it looks like 2 diff Ethernet
>>> feeds ?
>>> 
>>> Thanks
>>> Eric
>>>  
>>>  
>>> (Current Config - both sides the same)
>>>  
>>> interface FastEthernet0/5
>>>  description connected to Cust A
>>>  switchport access vlan 5
>>> 
>>> interface GigabitEthernet0/1
>>>  description connected to fiber-trunk
>>>  switchport trunk allowed vlan 1,2,4,5,6,7,8,12,1002-1005
>> switchport 
>>> mode trunk
>>> 
>>>  
>>>  
>>> (Additional port ??)    --- ??? same vlan ? diff vlan ?  port group
>>> Cust-Colo Loc A  ???
>>> interface FastEthernet0/6
>>>  description connected to Cust A
>>>  switchport access vlan 5
>>>  port group 5
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
>>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
>>> archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
>> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
> archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/