[c-nsp] Add 2nd Trunk

[Tom Storey]

Sorry, For some reason I read 7606 as 7206. Dont far too much work with the
7200 platform. :-)

That could present a different situation. Are you using SVIs on the 7606 to
terminate the customer VLANs, or sub-interfaces?

If sub-interfaces, then there shouldn't be a problem because the ports are
routed. If SVIs then you would need to be careful about not creating loops
because the ports are switched.


On 8 June 2013 12:02, Tom Storey <tom at snnap.net> wrote:

> There should be no loops as the two router ports are routed, not switched.
>
> Configure the second trunk on the switch, and plug the cable in to the
> second router port, make sure its up/up on both ends and configure a test
> service on it to be 100% sure traffic is flowing over it.
>
> Then in a text editor stage the configuration snippets you need to "no"
> the interface off the old interface, and re-configure it on the new one.
> Then copy/paste one by one, making sure after each one that you can ping
> the remote device.
>
> The move should be quick, MAC and ARP tables should update fairly quickly,
> within a couple of seconds if there is traffic. Use a ping to generate some
> traffic if need be.
>
> Do it early in the morning to minimise any impact (look at your traffic
> graphs to work out when the quietest time is), but it should already be as
> minimal as possible anyway.
>
>
> On 8 June 2013 10:53, Ahmed Hilmy <hilmy.aa at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Thanks Tom for your kind email.
>> I got your points.
>> our customers will never accept any interruption !!!
>> i can move some VLANs from 1st trunk to 2nd one, in this case should i
>> care about loop ?  i think it will not happen , each trunk will carry
>> different VLANs and at swtich side configure 2nd trunk ?
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 3:40 AM, Tom Storey <tom at snnap.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Depending on the hashing algoritm, it is still possible for one link to
>>> run hotter than the other in a bundle.
>>>
>>> Just like it is possible for the right mix of customers to run one link
>>> hotter than the other.
>>>
>>> Using a second trunk means that most customers will not experience any
>>> interruption, only the customers whos configuration is moved from one GigE
>>> to the other will experience a brief interruption. Using a bundle you would
>>> need to interrupt all customers to implement it, however, it also provides
>>> a level of redundancy if one GigE fails for some reason.
>>>
>>> A bundle also allows for capacity increases to be implemented quite
>>> easily in the future too.
>>>
>>> All valid solutions with pro's and con's. :-)
>>>
>>>
>>> On 7 June 2013 21:35, Ahmed Hilmy <hilmy.aa at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hello Friends,
>>>>
>>>> I have a Cisco SW ( 3560 ) with one Trunk link to my router ( 7606 ),
>>>> Trunk
>>>> link is fully utilized so i need to add 2nd Trunk.
>>>> Shall all move some customers from old trunk to 2nd one and create a new
>>>> subterface for them ?
>>>>
>>>> I am think if i can create bundle and add subinterfaces under this
>>>> bundle ?
>>>>
>>>> Add two GE ports to be memeber of this bundle ?
>>>>
>>>> Please advice
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Ahmed
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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/
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>