I have a two VIFs (one for each filer head) spread across a pair of stacked 3750-Es. Right now I'm using Etherchannel on the switches but I've been reading a lot saying that LACP may be better. I'm trying to figure out what exactly the benefit would be, can anyone clarify?
This message (including any attachments) contains confidential and/or proprietary information intended only for the addressee. Any unauthorized disclosure, copying, distribution or reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited and may constitute a violation of law. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately by responding to this e-mail, and delete the message from your system. If you have any questions about this e-mail please notify the sender immediately.
Hey Jeremy,
On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 4:28 PM, Page, Jeremy jeremy.page@gilbarco.com wrote:
I have a two VIFs (one for each filer head) spread across a pair of stacked 3750-Es. Right now I'm using Etherchannel on the switches but I've been reading a lot saying that LACP may be better. I'm trying to figure out what exactly the benefit would be, can anyone clarify?
LACP uses keepalives, to confirm that both sides of the link are still in agreement on how to bundle and loadbalance the data, whereas a multi uses a static configuration. Also, LACP can dynamically reconfigure a link on error.
There are situations where either bugs, hardware error or operator errors (misconfig) can cause up to 50% packet loss over a multi, which would be automatically repaired when using LACP. Greets,
Nils.
-
Nils Vogels -
Page, Jeremy