LACP accross multiple switches

membership

This solution is only available to members.

To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.

Small addition - Multi-chassis etherchannel is supported begging from Cisco 3750

https://supportforums.cisco.com/thread/2054801

If they are not stacked, then no.

If they are stacked, then yes.

SOLUTION

harbor235

membership

This solution is only available to members.

To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.

Actually, host to switch multi-chassis etherchannel is supported.

High-availability features such as EtherChannel and FlexLinks will work across stack members, increasing uptime and network connectivity.

http://www.cisco.com/en/US/prod/collateral/switches/ps5718/ps6406/white_paper_c11-578928.html

harbor235

Question said they were not stacked Don but I agree

harbor235 ;}

It is safe to NIC team them, but you can't use LACP.

We do NIC teaming with the NIC's going to different non-stacked switches all of the time.

If you NIC team them in active-active mode this gives you 2 times the outbound bandwidth and availability if one path fails. It does NOT give you 2 times the inbound bandwidth that LACP would give you.

If you NIC team active-standby then you still have availability, but you only get the bandwidth of a single NIC in both directions.

ASKER

So far in my testing I setup the switchports to be lacp mode active on both switches.
It works, with the server connected to both switches but failover takes a bit longer as opposed to it being connected to the same switch. I am assuming spanning-tree is the cause of the extra time to recover the connection to the server.

Can you show us your config?

You cannot implement etherchannel to two separate chassis (in a Cisco environment) unless you use stacking, VSS or vPC.

The only possible exception is if the use of the term "NIC teaming" is used to describe something completely different than etherchannel (or port aggregation).

I agree, that is why I asked to show us config

ASKER

There is no stacking. just 2 switches that are trunked via an etherchannel.

Yes, I am using "NIC teaming" on an HP server. So, I am wondering how this is working between 2 switches that are not stacked? can someone explain?

thanks

LACP is not in place, this is 100%. It is just connected to 2 different switches and that's is

SOLUTION

membership

This solution is only available to members.

To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.

Spanning-tree is a good idea, it explains why it "takes a bit longer" to failover, as you said.

ASKER CERTIFIED SOLUTION

membership

This solution is only available to members.

To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.

ASKER

ok. so I guess the real question is since I can't LACP between both switches. What is the best setup? If I am 'nic teaming' on the server and plug both nics to the same switch, then this means I will be able to run LACP on the switch and increase performance. However, if the switch fails I lose both links to the server. If I connect the server to both switches then I can't utilize LACP however I increase redundancy to the server in case of a single switch failure. Am I correct in thinking this way? Or should I not even consider one setup over the other?

thanks

What is your ultimate goal? More bandwidth? Or availability? Pick one.

I am assuming you have gigabit NIC's. Are you actually ever exceeding 1 Gbps for a length of time that somebody actually notices?

ASKER

Availability? but I also want to follow good practice.

Are both methods acceptable?

SOLUTION

membership

This solution is only available to members.

To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.