Mon, can you elaborate further? That’s a bit of a vague statement…

Am I missing something? You note that you’re using the command “channel-group 1 mode on” in order to force static 802.3ad, but in the Cisco documentation I’m reading (http://72.163.4.161/en/US/docs/switches/lan/catalyst6500/ios/12.1E/native/command/reference/C1.html) it says that “mode on” means “Enable EtherChannel only.”

This is my portgroup; I’m wondering if it’s LACP or PAgP? It goes to a NetApp filer, after all:

server-1#show int Po8
Port-channel8 is up, line protocol is up (connected)
Hardware is EtherChannel, address is 000e.836c.5460 (bia 000e.836c.5460)

Chris

Do we have to use the XOR to calculate which IP address to use for the traffic to use different ports

Also on good cisco switches, you can use Layer4 (src-dst-port) balancing for even better granularity than Layer3 (src-dst-ip). L3 usually gets your around 20/80 balance, L4 has the possibility to give 40/60.

On layered network structure, you use L3 in core, L4 in distribution and L3 again in access.

so:
(config)#mls ip cef load-sharing full
full load balancing algorithm to include L4 ports

(config)#port-channel load-balance src-dst-port
src-dst-port Src XOR Dst TCP/UDP Port

Most of the Cisco old generation switches, including 3550 supports MAC ( source/Dest.) based load balancing. However newer models wiht latest IOS, supports MAC & IP based load balancing. Please also note that in some models, etherchannel load balancing needs to be enabled eplicitly.

Also note that the load balance mether cant be set per channel. Its common for all the channels.

I have configured multiple etherchannels for numerous NetApps filers. But the netowrk architect who designed the solution did not request for any specific load balancing metheod, essestially making the balancing method unmatching on both sides. But still, the filers are working.( I foresee some issues when the traffic increases in future, we will have some packet drops.) My suggestions to initiate a discussion on this was not given much weightage.

To conclude, the load balancing method on both sides need not match, to make the channel working.

Best Regards
Sriram

In a simple, flat (single subnet) network MAC vs IP load-balancing should produce almost identical results as there will be one MAC address per IP address.

If multiple subnets/VLAN’s are used, traffic for non-local subnets will all map to one (or a small number of) MAC addresses used by the default gateway for the local subnet which results in the poor performance mentioned by some posters.

So, in summary, use IP load balancing at both ends to avoid any unexpected issues, either during the inital deployment or as your network grows and additional subnets are added.

Links on the filer can be aggregated using vifs. Multimode vifs can be enabled
to run LACP to dynamically monitor the vif. Enabling LACP on a vif that has
VLANs running GVRP enabled caused the links to drop all LACP frames which
results in the vif being down.

If no trunk is necessary use no trunking mode:
vif create lacp cisco -b ip e0b e3b
ifconfig cisco 192.168.13.150 netmask 255.255.255.0 –wins

On the cisco site:
interface Port-channel20
switchport access vlan 13
switchport mode access
flowcontrol receive desired
spanning-tree portfast

interface GigabitEthernet1/0/48
switchport access vlan 13
switchport mode access
flowcontrol receive desired
no cdp enable
channel-protocol lacp
channel-group 20 mode active
spanning-tree portfast

interface GigabitEthernet2/0/48
switchport access vlan 13
switchport mode access
flowcontrol receive desired
no cdp enable
channel-protocol lacp
channel-group 20 mode active
spanning-tree portfast

As far as I am aware, the load-balancing option does need to match and the load balancing option is set for the entire switch. I don’t think it can be set on a per-port channel basis. However, I’ll leave that to any Cisco expert readers to answer definitively.