[c-nsp] Cisco 3020 blade switches hung, HLFM errors, network meltdown?
Mateusz Błaszczyk
blahu77 at gmail.com
Thu Mar 20 06:40:07 EDT 2008
As Fredrik said running "channel-group on" could be very dangerous:
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/tech/tk389/tk213/technologies_tech_note09186a008009448d.shtml
Best Regards,
-mat
On 20/03/2008, Fredrik Jacobsson <cisco-nsp at jacobsson.nu> wrote:
> In a stp troubleshooting paper on cco, I saw a recommendation to run
> pagp (non-silent) due to it's ability to select/negiotiate which port
> in the bundle to run stp on. Also to prevent that the configs differ
> and shut down inconsistant ports.
>
> (was a while and I dont have a photographic memory so please dont kill
> me if I'm wrong)
>
> Is that setup (desirable non-silent) still considered best practise?
> (I've noticed that many use "on" nowadays, hence not using pagp/lacp)
>
> Thanks
> /Fredrik
>
> 2008/3/20, matthew zeier <mrz at velvet.org>:
>
> >
> > On Mar 19, 2008, at 5:18 PM, Lincoln Dale wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Matthew,
> > >
> > > not a specific diagnosis to your problem, but i think this is a bit
> > > of a warning here:
> > >
> > > matthew zeier wrote:
> > >> Felt like a broadcast storm or even a spanning-tree loop but I'd be
> > >> surprised if it was the latter and the upstream switches, two
> > >> 6500s, didn't know how to do deal with that (heck, they deal with
> > >> HP 2510s that default to not running spanning-tree).
> > >>
> > > if you had switches in your network NOT running STP, you've got a
> > > pretty good opportunitiy for "bad things<tm>" to happen.
> > >
> > > were those switches connected with >1 link?
> >
> > Yes and for all the Vlans I have, one uplink is blocked :
> >
> > Interface Role Sts Cost Prio.Nbr Type
> > ---------------- ---- --- --------- --------
> > --------------------------------
> > Po1 Root FWD 3 128.72 P2p
> > Po2 Altn BLK 3 128.80 P2p
> >
> > Native Vlan on 0/16 was changed which broke the bundle and everything
> > else. One upstream switch is the other 3020 in the same chassis - the
> > other is a 6500 which is also running pvst. I would have figured
> > something would have noticed a look at shut something down (if it was
> > a STP loop anyways).
> >
> > interface Port-channel1
> > description to_core2:po100
> > switchport trunk encapsulation dot1q
> > switchport trunk native vlan 2
> > switchport mode trunk
> >
> > interface Port-channel2
> > switchport trunk encapsulation dot1q
> > switchport trunk native vlan 2
> > switchport mode trunk
> >
> > interface GigabitEthernet0/17
> > description to_core2:7/32
> > switchport trunk encapsulation dot1q
> > switchport trunk native vlan 2
> > switchport mode trunk
> > logging event bundle-status
> > logging event spanning-tree
> > channel-group 1 mode on
> > !
> > interface GigabitEthernet0/18
> > description to_core2:7/33
> > switchport trunk encapsulation dot1q
> > switchport trunk native vlan 2
> > switchport mode trunk
> > logging event bundle-status
> > logging event spanning-tree
> > channel-group 1 mode on
> >
> > interface GigabitEthernet0/23
> > switchport trunk encapsulation dot1q
> > switchport trunk native vlan 2
> > switchport mode trunk
> > logging event bundle-status
> > logging event spanning-tree
> > media-type internal
> > channel-group 2 mode on
> > !
> > interface GigabitEthernet0/24
> > switchport trunk encapsulation dot1q
> > switchport trunk native vlan 2
> > switchport mode trunk
> > logging event bundle-status
> > logging event spanning-tree
> > media-type internal
> > channel-group 2 mode on
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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/
>
--
-mat
More information about the cisco-nsp
mailing list