Cisco Support Community
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Announcements

Welcome to Cisco Support Community. We would love to have your feedback.

For an introduction to the new site, click here. And see here for current known issues.

New Member

CSCtq62715 - ASA should not allow EtherChannel configuration on 4 port SSM module - 1

Hi,

Has anyone experienced the opposite problem, etherchannel works fine on 4 GE SSM in module 1 of ASA5550 running 8.4 code, but no longer works when upgrade to version 9.1? 

Config options using 8.4(4):

ASAconfig)# int g1/0

ASA(config-if)# ?

Interface configuration commands:

  authentication   authentication subcommands

  channel-group    Etherchannel/port bundling configuration

  ddns             Configure dynamic DNS

Config options using version 9.1(2):

ASA(config-if)# int g1/0

ASA (config-if)# ?

Interface configuration commands:

authentication   authentication subcommands

ddns             Configure dynamic DNS

 

Thanks,

Gillian

1 ACCEPTED SOLUTION

Accepted Solutions
Cisco Employee

CSCtq62715 - ASA should not allow EtherChannel configuration on

Hi Gillian,

What you are describing is what this bug was filed to address.  In 8.4, the CLI allowed one to configure an etherchannel on the 4-port GigE module.  9.0/9.1 removed this capability in the CLI as the feature is not supported on the module.  Bug CSCtq62715 is the bug used to make this change.

Sincerely,

David.

3 REPLIES
Cisco Employee

CSCtq62715 - ASA should not allow EtherChannel configuration on

Hi Gillian,

What you are describing is what this bug was filed to address.  In 8.4, the CLI allowed one to configure an etherchannel on the 4-port GigE module.  9.0/9.1 removed this capability in the CLI as the feature is not supported on the module.  Bug CSCtq62715 is the bug used to make this change.

Sincerely,

David.

New Member

CSCtq62715 - ASA should not allow EtherChannel configuration on

That makes sense David, thanks a mil for your response!

New Member

So I understand that the

So I understand that the 'channel-group' sub command has been depreciated. Am I correct in understanding that the use of

interface redundant 1

creates a redundant pair of interfaces and does not bond? If that's the case, what is the proper way to bond or LACP 2 interfaces in  9.1 and later?

I'm working on a 5520

415
Views
0
Helpful
3
Replies
CreatePlease to create content