06-27-2007 10:38 AM - edited 03-05-2019 05:00 PM
Can anyone tell me if there's any reason why one would create a Port-Channel (containing only a single member) vs. a routable sub-interface? The device type is a 2948GL3.
06-27-2007 10:41 AM
Hi,
The port channel is stand for aggregating either L2 or L3 links and if you have only one link there is no need of aggregating at all.
Krisztian
06-27-2007 10:44 AM
Hi and thx for the reply. So in other words, the person who made this config, used a PO to handle the routing of the connected subnet, vs. just creating a subinterface of the physical port..correct? <
06-27-2007 10:54 AM
Are you sure that it is 2948 indeed, because as I know 2948 is L2 switch and does not have L3 capability?
Krisztian
06-27-2007 11:01 AM
Krisztian this unit is a 2948GL3 (routable) and is currently my core. I am trying to simply the new config with what makes sense. To me it appeared as if the PO was created simply to hold an ip, and to be used as the DFG instead of configuring a sub-int. I just want to make sure there is nothing i am missing moving forward. I plan to rip out all PO's with only a single member and configure the new core with routable interfaces (sub-ints) vs. carrying over a sloppy design.
06-27-2007 10:57 AM
Hi,
I guess this might be looking the future aspect, and modularity, i.e. if required multiple FE ports or GE ports could be added to the Port-Channel and it is more scalable (in terms of BW and fault-tolerance)
Now in terms of the Subinterface this can't be done in order to handle if the need for bandwidth grows high.
I hope that helps,
Please rate if it helps,
Kind Regards,
Wilson Samuel
06-27-2007 10:01 PM
Hi,
I have to agree with Wilson, that the PO does not have disadvantage and if you plan to increase the bandwidth the PO is a good choice. Anyway you have two way to create L3 interface. The first is to configure the switchport with ip address i.e. make it routable interface (obviously if you have trunk interface it is not possible) or create an SVI and assign the L2 port to that vlan. Summarized you don't need to get rid of the PO.
Krisztian
Find answers to your questions by entering keywords or phrases in the Search bar above. New here? Use these resources to familiarize yourself with the community: