[c-nsp] Catalyst port groups with trunk ports in between
Eric Kagan
ekagan at axsne.com
Thu Mar 30 14:09:48 EST 2006
> 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.
In this case they are Cat 2924/3524XL which use a port-group command on the
interface. I don't think they create a virtual interface on these switches
Thanks
Eric
>
> 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/
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/
>
More information about the cisco-nsp
mailing list