PortChannel vs L3 load sharing

Discussion in 'Cisco' started by Jeff Kell, Jan 30, 2004.

  1. Jeff Kell

    Jeff Kell Guest

    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 <>
     
    Jeff Kell, Jan 30, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Replies:
    1
    Views:
    2,378
    Vincent C Jones
    Nov 21, 2005
  2. Replies:
    2
    Views:
    382
  3. mansurbd
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,635
    mansurbd
    Jul 29, 2008
  4. echelon1

    adding vlan to portchannel

    echelon1, Jan 18, 2009, in forum: Cisco
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    3,282
    echelon1
    Jan 20, 2009
  5. palas_123
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    2,169
    donjohnston
    Dec 28, 2009
Loading...

Share This Page