|
Posted by Trendkill on May 13, 2008, 2:16 pm
If you were Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options > On May 12, 11:44 am, jan.paul...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> > the current situation is that we have 2 sites connected with 2
> > microwave links. the links are of different brand and can not be
> > redundant by them self. if one link fails i am currently shutting down
> > that interface and bring up the interface for the spare link on the
> > catalyst. here the current interface config:
>
> > 3548-XL
> > interface FastEthernet0/43
> > description ll02
> > duplex full
> > speed 100
> > switchport trunk encapsulation dot1q
> > switchport mode trunk
> > ........
> > interface FastEthernet0/48
> > description ll01
> > shutdown
> > duplex full
> > speed 100
> > switchport trunk encapsulation dot1q
> > switchport mode trunk
>
> > and the other side the 3524-XL
> > interface FastEthernet0/19
> > description ll02
> > duplex full
> > speed 100
> > switchport trunk encapsulation dot1q
> > switchport mode trunk
> > ........
> > interface FastEthernet0/23
> > description ll01
> > duplex full
> > speed 100
> > switchport trunk encapsulation dot1q
> > switchport mode trunk
>
> > fe0/43 - fe0/19 are one link and fe0/48 - fe0/23 are one link.
>
> > i have read about port group and have tried to configure that today, i
> > can issue the commands and the config does show the ports in the port
> > group but i cant pass any traffic. i had all 4 interfaces in port
> > group 1. is port group the wrong thing to do for what i try to
> > achieve ?
>
> > any advice is very welcome.
>
> > regards
> > Jan
>
> Do you have to trunk? Why not turn up a diff subnet on the remote
> side and turn up layer 3 routing between sites via both links? If one
> drops, routing will failover to the second link since the adjacency
> will drop. If you can't do this, I'm not sure why a link failure
> wouldn't failover with your configuration anyway. If you have two
> trunks, only one is being used at any given time (to avoid a loop),
> and if it fails, spanning-tree should run and it should go forwarding
> on the other trunk. What am I missing?
If you want to load share, and presuming both links are equal
bandwidth and go between the same two switches, have you tried
etherchannel? If its just a layer 2 connection at each switch, they
most likely have no idea that there is a microwave between them, and
etherchannel would allow both ports to belong in the same channel
unless one went down. Else the layer 3 suggestion from my previous
post will work fine, as long as both links are equal bandwidth, any
decent routing protocol should load share the paths presuming its the
same end points on both sides.
| 
Yahoo! 
Google 
Windows Live 
del.icio.us 
digg 
Netscape 
XML site map