Cisco Switching/Routing :: Lost Port Channel Between 6513
Feb 24, 2012
We have 2 6513's that are linked via 2 10 gig interfaces, using an LACP channel.I received an alert this aft stating that the far 6513 was unreachable and the port channel int PO3 had gone down, the 2 10 gig interfaces had also gone down on either side. 5 mins later PO3 had resestablished itself and has been fine since. [code]
I have created 5 new 2 Gig port channels on a 6513 WS-X6516A-GBIC blade connecting to 5 4510R+E switches. 3 of the 5 Port-channels show up/up. 2 show down/down. However, for the 2 showing down, a duplicate Po interface was created with an "A" appended to the name that shows up/up. E.g:
Port-channel26 unassigned YES unset down down Port-channel26A unassigned YES unset up up
Each of the 4510s has a second 2Gig PO to another 6513 with an identical config and all of those come up fine.
We have 2 6513 switches with SUP720/PFC3A and various POE modules and a 6748-GE-TX facing our servers. Additionally, we have a 4Gbps portchannel trunk interconnecting the switches. We have approximately 300 Nortel IP 1140e phones in use between the two switches.For the purpose of call recording, we've attempted to mirror the voice vlan using various approaches and have been met with limited success. We mirrored the VLAN using tx, rx, and both. When using both we appear to get duplicate packets at the destination interface.We seem to lose packets completely going in one direction or another for a given call. Packets are lost before they get to the destination interface?
Ask this question, if someone came across a 6513, one of the RJ45 ports are constantly falling.The question is how to disable logging on a specific portno logging event link-status does not work.
I am having issues with 'telnet' on port 2821 to a range of servers connecting through vlan interface from my core switch 6513 running s72033_rp-DVIPSERVICESK9_WAN-VM) version 12.2(33)SXH7, RELEASE SOFTWARE (fc3). The telnet on port 1556 and 13724 is ok.
we have a chassis 6513-E and a module WS-X6748-GE-TX, I'd like to know if could I put this module in any slot, since the documentation from Cisco says that any slot from a chassis 6500-E Series can support this module. And then in the documentation of WS-X6748-GE-TX says that this module is not compatible in the slots 1-8 of the 6513 chassis, only from 9th to 13th slots, in those slots from the 6513-E we already have 4x WS-X6748-GE-TX, and we'd like to know if could we put the module in the rest of the slots. The 6513, and 6513-E is kind of confusing.
I have 3750 core/distribution switches with routing enabled in two offices connected with copper link and L3 port channel interfaces. NewOffice#2 has moved about 5 miles farther away from office#1 and I have to deploy new core/distribution switch connect it to old core#2 via F.O and move all access switches with it. Old core will stay in old #2 offices as a bridge between office#1 and new office#2 Office#1core<->copper (Ethernet) <->oldoffice#2core<->f.o. <->new office#2core How I should configure port channels ports on oldoffice#2 core to act as bridge between office#1 core/dist and newoffice#2 core/dist without changing anything else (ip, etc) on whole network
I have 2 Cisco 6509 switches linked together via single Fibre as a trunk.I want to change this to a port channel where I will add another 3 fibre ports to the port channel but what order do I do this to minimise any disruption.
1-Configure PortChannel and add the 3 new ports, this will bring up the Port Channel but what effect will this have on traffic currently going over the single Trunk link? Will spanning tree go mad, how will switches react?
2-Convert existing Trunk link to Portchannel then add in new ports to PortChannel, I guess in doing this there will be a small hit on traffic as it changes to a port channel.
We are running nexus 5018 in our DC.What is the difference betwen "channel-group 214 mode active" and " channel-group 216" Any difference?.. because i have problem with this config we are going build a server config?
We have problem with porth channel down.
5K# sh int po71 port-channel71 is down (No operational members) vPC Status: Down, vPC number: 71 [packets forwarded via vPC peer-link]
I am building a new network and intended on using the min-link feature on my port-channels between a 3750-X series switch and Nexus 4k.
However reading further into this it seems this feature is only supported on higher end models. I cannot find any reference to the min-links feature in the 3750-X configuration guide. Is this an available feature?
The 3750-X model is WS-C3750X-24T-L running IOS 12.2(55)SE3 IP Services
My thoughts is that the is only an LACP supported feature so I may not see the command until I have entered an LACP specific command on the port-channel but unfortunately I do not have a 3750X to verify this on at present.
We have one 3825 router used as voice gateway. For redudancy, we want to connect it to two different switches which has STP and HSRP running. Can I create a port-channel with two Giga interfaces in 3825 and connect to two different switches? Should I configure port channel in switch with only one port in each port-channel? I know server can be connected to different switches with NIC teaming. I just want to mimic that kind of setup. I did one time for port-channel in 3825, but it was connected to a stacked 3750X. So it's different case now.
I am trying to configure port-channel from one switch to two switchs, and only one interface of each switches make part of the port channel.Cisco IOS Software, ME380x Software (ME380x-UNIVERSALK9-M), Version 12.2(52)EY4, RELEASE SOFTWARE (fc1) [code]
I have a pair of 6500's setup with VSS and there is currently only one link between then. However one end of the link is on Po10 and the other end is on Po25. If I move the Po25 over to Po10, will things break? It seems to be working fine now. I'm about to add a second link and I'm concerned about the current configuration. It makes more sense to me to have both ends of the same link on the same port-channel ID. I've seen documentation which states otherwise however.
interface Port-channel10 no switchport no ip address
I am using 3560.IP rouitng is being turned off on this.Curious to know if I will create etherchannel or port channel.I think etherchannel.Correct me if I am wrong.On connecting switches I have vlan10,20,30 to be allowed.I am sure I need to allow these all vlan in 10,20,30 which are on the trunk port on each side switch.Post that will add channel-port lacp and make it in active mode.Is that correct.This way traffic will be load-balanced/aggregated on minimum 2 ports who are the part of this.
Here's what I'm trying to do. We are having new storage servers installed that will be using NFS. I'm being told that they need to have their connections port channeled. Right now, the servers have connections to 2 different 3750s for HA. Is it possible to configure a port channel between these 2 connections?
I have an inquiry about a configuration I deploy in a C2960 switch. I have configured a ether channel with 8 ports, the load balanced method is source mac address. The bundling protocol is LACP.
I have found the ether channel is not balanced as I expect. One of the eight interfaces is congested.
We have a switch that, when configuring auto qos on and edge port facing video equipment, the upstream port channel drops. I was wondering if no auto qos would have to be configured on the member ports of the port channel prior to enabling auto qos on any other ports.
I have a Cisco 6500 series switch with VS-C6509E-S720-10G ,I have two redundant supervisors between two chassis on the LAN with no add-on line cards ?
I need to know if I can use the redundant supervisor 10 Gb uplinks to form a layer-2 Port channel between the two 6500 switches as i do not want to use want to keep the port idle additionally I need more bandwidth between the two switches for my server farm?
I have 2 cisco 6500 in a VSS configuration , All of my Lan access switches are Stack switches and every Stack is connected to the VSS in a Port-channel so basically this is a loop free environment with no blocked ports .As a best practice I left STP in the Background (mstp)which enhanced cisco features to STP should I configure on the Aggregator (6500-VSS) and on the Access switches ?
Because of my topology I dont see the need in configuring most features like Uplink Fast and Backbone Fast but I have configured Loop Guard in addition to UDLD on the 6500 Aggregation Switches (on the port-channels).On the access ports I have configured portfast , bpduguard and guard root (seems a little pointless to configure the two...)
1.should I Leave UDLD on and get rid of LoopGuard and configure Guard root instead ? since LoopGuard cannot be configured with Guard Root.
2.should I configure GuardRoot on access ports if I already have BpduGuard on them ?
3.Is there anything I need to configure on the physicall interface or is everything configured on the port-channel since STP reguards port- channel as a single interface ?
I am trying to create a port channel between HP servers (4 nic) and two nexus 2k. The server side its a single team with 803.2ad fault taulerence and on the nexus side it have created two port channel (port channel 1 for nexus 2k1 and port channel 2 for nexus 2k2) and made them ACTIVE (channel group mode active)
But when i add a another server on different ports and port channel them the same way as the above server on nexus 2k1 and nexus 2k2, the first server stops pinging. so i have to sht down the first port channel and reopen them - then it works, however it says NO NETWORK ACCESS on the servers (running windows 2008). the only way is to reboot the server i cant be doing this on a production network.
Is it possible to use a 10GE interface on a sup720 and an interface from a 671610GE line card and create a port channel. I haven't found specific documentation on CCO stating you can. I have found the QOS queuing is differnet between the sup and line card.
I need adding a vlan to the trunks bundled in port channel. I know how to add v lans to a port channel with Cisco IOS but with CAT OS.
I have 2 ports bundled to form ether channel in switch which is running CAT OS. There are already few v lans allowed in the trunk of each interface. now I need to add one more v lan.
For Example:- v lan 135 needs to be added in addition to the existing v lans.
clear trunk1/2 1-112,115,117-134,136-4094 set trunk 1/2 on dot1q 113-114,116,135
and similarly on the 2nd interface
so if I add vlan135 to the trunk one after another will it cause any service disruption?
I am having hard time in understanding the hardware port channel resource concept in Nexus 5Ks. Which scenario is considered as a hardware port channel and which is not. According to Cisco documentation, 5548UP switch with layer 3 daughter card only supports 8 hardware port channels, does this mean we can connect only 8 dual homed Fex to those 5Ks.Will a dual homed fex consumes a hardware port channel?
I have two Core 6509E SUP2T configued as VSS and has two 48 ports fiber blades. I have two 3750s, I have two gig on each 3750 port-channle to po1 and connected to both the core, one link to each core.Now, I was asked ot add two more links on each 3750 switch to make it a total of 4 gigs on each 3750s (all 4 gig ports/uplinks will be in used an dtwo links to core one an dtwo links to core 2).when i added two additional links on 3750s and bundled them to po1, I created another port channel on core and bundeled the additional two gigs on each core to accomodate for the two additional links (ports on core switches are not consequtives).
adding these two additional ports makes the 3750 switches flap between managemnet vlan and po1.now, i am not sure if I must have added the two additional links on the core to teh current port-channel or core!? I have created another port-channel on core to accomodate for this currently!?
I am a bit confused by the output of 'show run' and 'show run switch-profile' that pertains to a port-channel interface configured in a switch-profile. My main gaol is to find out how can I add/remove the allowed vlans the port-channel (configured as trunk) carries. The setup is like this. I have 2 N5k in vPC domain and Etherner1/11 on both switches is configured as trunk vPC that connects to a core switch. When I issue ‘show run’ for the port-channel and physical interface I get the following output. [code] From above it seems the switch-profile configuration is missing the 'switchport trunk allowed vlan' in the port-channel interface. If want I to remove vlan 30 from the allowed vlan, should I go under the switch-profile mode and remove vlan 30 from the allowed list even though the switch-profile configuration seems to be missing this.
I configured the interfaces individually at L3 and could ping across each link Example:
4500 Switch 2: 6500 Switch 1 int t5/1 - int g3/17 1 Gig fiber link tore down config tried second set of interface int t6/1 - int g8/17 1 Gig fiber link Ping successful
We are currently designing Layer 3 to the edge EIGRP solution for our customers. The network is a hybrid of collapsed core (Core to access) as well as a three layer design (Core/Distro/Access) for connectivity to the Data Centre, Internet, Wireless Blocks etc.The core of the network contains two 6509-E switches interconnected on a Layer 3 Port channel (no VSS). Access Layer switches (3750-X series running Stackwiseplus protocol) connect to the core switches over p2p routed links and Distribution layer switches (3750X stackwiseplus) provide connectivity to the Data centre, Internet, wireless blocks etc.
The access and distribution switch stacks(Cisco 3750-X) are set up with two or three member switches with uplinks multihomed to the primary and secondary core switch with each uplink included in EIGRP. In each of the stacks, one of the switches controls the operation of the stack, which will be the stack master.As the Cisco Stackwise architecture is not SSO-capable but NSF aware, all Layer 3 fuctions must be re-established during a master switch outage. To minimize control plane impact and improve Layer3 convergence, uplinks should be diverse and originate from the member switches instead of the Master switches in the respective stack. This is as per Cisco recommended design solution.The above solution can be setup if there are more than two switches in the stack. i.e. uplinks are configured on the backup member switch modules.
1.But what about stack with two switches..Which switch should be set up as the Master for a two member stack with uplinks to the core primary and secondary from each switch(Master and Backup)
2. For Layer 3 routing, does the routing takes precedene over switch failures? Say for eg. In a two member stack, the master switch with uplink to primary fails, does EIGRP provide a fast convergence to route traffic via backup secondary and does not wait for the control plane on the switch stack to converge? All the access to core links will be set up for ECMP.