[c-nsp] x6148 vs. x6548

[Tim Stevenson]

You are correct. That only applies to the 6148. Originally it also 
applied to the 6548 as well, but that limitation was removed later by 
s/w optimizations in the LTL programming scheme. So you *can* get 
more than 1G thru an etherchannel with 6548s, but of course, you 
still can only get 1G max thru a given port group on the card.

All the other restrictions of the 6148 (eg, no jumbos) still apply to 6548.

HTH,
Tim


At 09:46 AM 6/12/2009, Michael Ulitskiy muttered:

>On Friday 12 June 2009 11:34:14 am Pete Templin wrote:
> > Geoffrey Pendery wrote:
> >
> > > I have a question of my own, since this subject has come up a time or
> > >  two - regarding the 6148's, the statement is made a couple times
> > > that Etherchannel will get you port redundancy but no extra
> > > bandwidth, since the ASIC is only a gig.  But if I distribute my
> > > channel across two slots, say Gig 1/1 and Gig 2/1, does that get me
> > > around the gig limit?  Or even Gig 1/1 and Gig 1/48, since it's
> > > separate ASICs? Logic tells me yes, but I've heard the "1 gig limit"
> > > mentioned as if it's a hard platform limitation, not just a result of
> > > a particular bottleneck.  My instinctive behavior with channels is to
> > > span them across blades anyway, to guard against blade failure....
> >
> > My understanding (since my google-fu won't find a quickie answer at the
> > moment) is that 6148s copy any EtherChannel frames to every ASIC on the
> > card, so you can get to 2G by spreading over two cards, but you're still
> > limited to 1G no matter no many controllers you cover within a 6148.  :(
> >
> > We've updated the banners on all relevant 6148-loaded chassis to remind
> > folks to never build EtherChannels on those cards.  Oh well...
>
>My understanding was that every EtherChannel frame is delivered (by 
>Sup) to every
>ASIC involved (has a port) in EtherChannel regardless of which card it is on.
>So you can't get more than 1G even if you distribute your 
>EtherChannel over several cards.
>Am I wrong?
>
>Michael
>_______________________________________________
>cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
><https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp>https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
>archive at 
><http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/>http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/




Tim Stevenson, tstevens at cisco.com
Routing & Switching CCIE #5561
Technical Marketing Engineer, Cisco Nexus 7000
Cisco - http://www.cisco.com
IP Phone: 408-526-6759
********************************************************
The contents of this message may be *Cisco Confidential*
and are intended for the specified recipients only.