Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Cisco > PortChannel vs L3 load sharing

Reply
Thread Tools

PortChannel vs L3 load sharing

 
 
Jeff Kell
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-30-2004
In working on a design for a server farm involving 3550s, 4506 Sup-IVs,
and a core 6500. The issue of multiple links leaves me with a couple of
basic (possibly stupid) questions. Do you run the links:

* Group 2 or 4 uplinks into an L3 PortChannel, or
* Configure multiple but parallel L3 point-to-points, and let EIGRP do
the load balancing?

I've found that the 3550 and 4500 do not do ip load-sharing per-packet
(which we have used with great success on multiple T1s on a WAN) and I
have a feeling there is more overhead with multiple L3 routes.

* What happens if a link fails? Multiple L3s are predictable, what will
a PortChannel do?

* Is there a preference for channel selection algorithms across those
platforms? (3550 to 4506, 4506 to 6509)

This cannot be an L2 trunk, it has to be point-to-point L3.

Thanks in advance,
Jeff <(E-Mail Removed)>


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Diff between load balancing & load sharing palas_123 Cisco 1 12-28-2009 11:32 PM
adding vlan to portchannel echelon1 Cisco 1 01-20-2009 10:55 AM
Difference between Ethernet PortChannel and Switch port Trunk mansurbd Cisco 0 07-29-2008 07:38 PM
Portchannel Link resets often at 5:00am jason.polce@gmail.com Cisco 2 09-26-2007 09:56 AM
Load Balancing / Load Sharing over parallel paths ciscortp@hotmail.com Cisco 1 11-21-2005 03:57 PM



Advertisments