07-05-2013 08:52 AM - edited 03-07-2019 02:15 PM
I have got stuck with some config I cannot get rid of. This is what I have (adapted to generalise it):
port-profile type port-channel UNIX-channel
switchport mode trunk
switchport trunk native vlan 100
switchport trunk allowed vlan 100, 200, 300, 400
state enabled
port-profile type ethernet UNIX-trunk
switchport mode trunk
switchport trunk native vlan 100
switchport trunk allowed vlan 100, 200, 300, 400
state enabled
interface Po1501
inherit port-profile UNIX-channel
interface Ethernet150/1/1
inherit port-profile UNIX-trunk
channel-group 1501 mode active
interface Ethernet151/1/1
inherit port-profile UNIX-trunk
channel-group 1501 mode active
Now, you might think the configurations on the physical ports are ambiguous. So the are, excpet that the port-profiles are consistent. It works OK as it is. But the physical links are inheriting from two different sources: the port-channel definition and the UNIX-trunk port-profile. This is all well and good until I want to add a VLAN to the port-channel, at which point the channel definitions will be inconsistent with the port-profile.
Don't ask me how I got into this situation .... it just bseemed like a good idea at the time. What I would like to do is to shut down each link in turn, replace the port-profile with the equivalent commands in plain text, then let the links inherit any future changes from the port-channel configuration. But it will not let me do so. It will not let me disinherit the port-profile, it will not let me remove the physical link from the channel group.
Bear in mind this is all in a switch-profile, because the FEX is dual-homed. But I don't think gthat is related to the problem because I get the same reult even if I break te sync peering. Oh ... and I have to do all this on the fly without interrupting the service.
Any ideas anyone?
Kevin DORRELL
Luxembourg
Solved! Go to Solution.
07-12-2013 08:42 AM
07-12-2013 01:58 AM
Bump?
07-12-2013 08:42 AM
07-14-2013 11:21 PM
Thanks Edison, that looks like the one, and that it affects a lot more releases than the 5.0(2) they talk about. The problem may be more general than they admit. I don't like their workaround ... I don't have a maintenance slot until October and I really need to use the ports now.
Thanks anyway for finding the bug.
Kevin Dorrell
Luxembourg
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: