[c-nsp] Basic Etherchannel Question

[Phil Mayers]

On 01/15/2011 12:42 AM, Peter Rathlev wrote:
> On Fri, 2011-01-14 at 18:50 -0500, Keegan Holley wrote:
>> Just wondering what the general consensus was on hard coding vs. negotiating
>> etherchannels.  I've always hard coded them and viewed the negotiation
>> protocols as a possible point of failure.
>
> We always use LACP, since an unconditional port-channel connected to
> something that's not a port-channel might lead to problems. I view it a
> little like GE auto-negotiation -- I can't see a reason for not using
> it.

At one time the Cisco "fast convergence" SRND recommended channel mode 
of "on" because it was a bit quicker bringing links up. We followed that 
advice, but TBH I've been reconsidering it lately.

To an extent it depends on what *kind* of etherchannel you're talking 
about. If it's router->router and you control the fibre patching, a 
mis-patch is less likely.

But if it's towards an edge server, where mis-patching gets more likely, 
LACP seems like a no-brainer.