You can have both uplinkfast and backbonefast on a switch. The switch running uplinkfast will generally have alternate ports (else uplinkfast is helpless), which means that it won't need backbonefast itself. However, it may run bbfast in order to answer the RLQs from a bridge that does not have any alternate port and that lost its root port.
Yes, it does work the same way. Switch would transition the alternate/blocking etherchannel to forwarding state expeditiously when the primary link goes down.
You also mention backbonefast and a word of caution might be suitable here: It is generally not a good idea to use uplinkfast AND backbonefast configured together on the same switch. (I have seen it)
If your network can handle it, Rapid Spanning Tree might be a viable alternative.
Thanks for the article; I've read quite a bit on uplinkfast, but that one breaks it out quite nice. As to the uplinkfast and backbonefast not being used together, what are the implications? Nothing I've seen says they shouldn't be used together.
You can have both uplinkfast and backbonefast on a switch. The switch running uplinkfast will generally have alternate ports (else uplinkfast is helpless), which means that it won't need backbonefast itself. However, it may run bbfast in order to answer the RLQs from a bridge that does not have any alternate port and that lost its root port.
The "uplinkfast bridge" actually not only answers RLQs but may also need to originate some...
Getting Started
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:
