Robert, Just a routed interface. On Tue, 27 Jul 2004 22:40:16 -0400 "Robert Crowe" <rwcrowe@comcast.net> wrote:

Do you need VLAN support or just a routed interface ?

-----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog@merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu] On Behalf Of Richard J. Sears Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2004 10:23 PM To: Nanog Subject: COnfiguration Suggestion - Etherchannel

Hey Everyone,

I am building out a customer that needs more than 1000Mbps of sustained bandwidth. Because of the customer equipment, etherchannel was suggested as the means to do this (it is compatible with this customers equipment).

I am running a 6509 with Dual SUP720's in IOS mode only (no cat software).

It was pointed out that there are really two different ways to configure the switch - I guess my question is which is the best (lowest overhead, etc)? Hopefully someone out there has been down this road before.

TIA

Two methods:

! interface Port-channel2 no ip address switchport switchport access vlan 10 switchport mode access ! interface GigabitEthernet7/1 no ip address switchport switchport access vlan 10 switchport mode access channel-group 2 mode on ! interface GigabitEthernet8/1 no ip address switchport switchport access vlan 10 switchport mode access channel-group 2 mode on ! interface Vlan10 description Customer_Name ip address 192.168.0.1 255.255.0.0 no ip redirects no ip unreachables !

And then there is this way:

! interface Port-channel2 description Customer_Name ip address 192.168.0.1 255.255.0.0 no ip redirects no ip unreachables ! interface GigabitEthernet7/1 description Customer_Name EtherChannel Interface #1 no ip address channel-group 2 mode on ! interface GigabitEthernet8/1 description Customer_Name EtherChannel Interface #2 no ip address channel-group 2 mode on !

****************************************** Richard J. Sears Vice President American Digital Network ---------------------------------------------------- rsears@adnc.com http://www.adnc.com ---------------------------------------------------- 858.576.4272 - Phone 858.427.2401 - Fax ----------------------------------------------------

I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . .

"Work like you don't need the money, love like you've never been hurt and dance like you do when nobody's watching."

****************************************** Richard J. Sears Vice President American Digital Network ---------------------------------------------------- rsears@adnc.com http://www.adnc.com ---------------------------------------------------- 858.576.4272 - Phone 858.427.2401 - Fax ---------------------------------------------------- I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . "Work like you don't need the money, love like you've never been hurt and dance like you do when nobody's watching."

Mike Sawicki wrote:

I would use method #2 above.. L3 FEC produces better balancing results as it is flow based, rather than mac-based. I'm not 100% certain that using the SVI interface would not produce a proper balance, but I doubt it. Using method one I would expect only one of the links to be used.

Use method 2 especially if you mean this to be a L3 handoff to the customer.

What Mike states is correct about the layer2 vs layer3 load balancing: http://www.cisco.com/en/US/customer/products/hw/switches/ps700/products_conf... Understanding Load Balancing EtherChannel balances traffic load across the links in a channel by reducing part of the binary pattern formed from the addresses in the frame to a numerical value that selects one of the links in the channel. EtherChannel load balancing can use either MAC addresses or IP addresses and either source or destination or both source and destination addresses. The selected mode applies to all EtherChannels configured on the switch. Use the option that provides the greatest variety in your configuration. For example, if the traffic on a channel is going only to a single MAC address, using the destination MAC address always chooses the same link in the channel; using source addresses or IP addresses may result in better load balancing. -- Robert Blayzor INOC, LLC rblayzor@inoc.net

Ben Buxton wrote:

On a related note - is it possible to get a 650x switch to perform flow based etherchannel load balancing, WITHOUT the switch actually routing (ie performing purely swithcing functions)??

I believe you then have to play around with the frame distribution settings in the Cat to maybe get what you're after. I only see the options in CatOS, I didn't dig too deep to find in in the Native IOS command set. From Cisco: When configurable, EtherChannel frame distribution can use MAC addresses, IP addresses, and Layer 4 port numbers. You can specify either source or destination address or both source and destination addresses and Layer 4 port numbers. The mode you select applies to all EtherChannels configured on the switch. Use the option that provides the greatest variety in your configuration. For example, if the traffic on a channel is going to a single MAC address only, using source addresses or IP addresses or Layer 4 port numbers as the basis for frame distribution may provide better frame distribution than selecting MAC addresses as the basis. I think that's about as good as it gets... -- Robert Blayzor, BOFH INOC, LLC rblayzor@inoc.net PGP: http://www.inoc.net/~dev/ Key fingerprint = 1E02 DABE F989 BC03 3DF5 0E93 8D02 9D0B CB1A A7B0 I'm not sure. Try calling the Internet's head office -- it's in the book.