10-29-2003 12:05 PM - edited 03-02-2019 11:20 AM
i went thru the lacp and pagp technology and as i have understood, you can bundle or group ports to form a single etherchannel, thus extending your total bandwidth depending on the bundled ports.
as i do further reading on this forum, i came up to the below link on 1 of the answers
i will quote the last paragraph
"At the end of the day, a single flow will only ever traverse a single link of the bundle. The hash just determines which link. Load doesn't come into the equation."
If this is true, then can we conclude that the etherchannel is not doing a truly link aggregation but instead just a form of redundancy which can be achieve without enabling etherchannel?
just confused.
thanks in advance
10-30-2003 08:52 AM
You are right in concluding etherchannel is mostly link redundancy, it is however giving you some aggregation, the hash will somewhat distribute traffic (based on src/dst mac) on the multiple links of your etherchannel. If you did not use etherchannel to get redundancy, STP would have to be used, and on a link failure STP will be much slower to recover than etherchannel.
10-30-2003 10:24 AM
If you are saying that the hash will distribute traffic on the multipple links of the etherchannel, how come on the conclussion of the link ive mentioned above says;
"a single flow will only ever traverse a single link of the bundle. The hash just determines which link. Load doesn't come into the equation."
This is what confuses me.
10-30-2003 12:26 PM
A flow is restricted to one link, and to the capacity of that link. But another flow could (depends on hash) use another link of the etherchannel, and that's when you get some overall bandwidth aggregation.
10-31-2003 02:36 AM
then we could conclude that
1. a flow is restricted to a single link and
2. multiple flow could exist at any given time.
thx a lot
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: