[c-nsp] port channel numbering schemes

[Mark Tinka]

On Friday, March 09, 2012 06:52:03 AM Alan Buxey wrote:

> another 'agreed' - however, we do try to use standard
> numbers for particular types of port-channel - ie doing
> something like ensuring the po1 on an aggregator switch
> is ALWAYS the link up to the core (and not a
> port-channel to a stack of access switches or a
> workstation) - this simplifies a lot of monitoring and
> sanity checking of configs/status of links etc.

What happens when you introduce a new vendor that starts 
numbering bundled interfaces with "0" :-)?

Or when a new BU in Cisco decide to do something different 
with their bundle links that is quite different from the BU 
whose systems you're currently using :-)?

Of course, maybe corner cases for most folk, but then again, 
I realize that one can't possibly conceieve every possible 
eventuality. Only time and joy/pain will truly determine 
your thoughts on the matter.

Cheers,

Mark.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/attachments/20120309/315a677a/attachment.sig>