<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>topic CSS and etherchannel support in Application Networking</title>
    <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/application-networking/css-and-etherchannel-support/m-p/13098#M128</link>
    <description>&lt;P&gt;What is the current status of Gigachannel and/or etherchannel support for the css boxes?  I'm told that there is no current support but it may be on the roadmap.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Thanks...&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;  Steve&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Tue, 18 Dec 2001 18:31:31 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>sbirn</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2001-12-18T18:31:31Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>CSS and etherchannel support</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/application-networking/css-and-etherchannel-support/m-p/13098#M128</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;What is the current status of Gigachannel and/or etherchannel support for the css boxes?  I'm told that there is no current support but it may be on the roadmap.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Thanks...&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;  Steve&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 18 Dec 2001 18:31:31 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/application-networking/css-and-etherchannel-support/m-p/13098#M128</guid>
      <dc:creator>sbirn</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2001-12-18T18:31:31Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: CSS and etherchannel support</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/application-networking/css-and-etherchannel-support/m-p/13099#M129</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;L7 switch dedicates Layer 4-7 function performance,Not low layer data throughput.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Could you tell me what's the significance CSS support FEC or GEC? Thanks.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Sat, 22 Dec 2001 04:54:04 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/application-networking/css-and-etherchannel-support/m-p/13099#M129</guid>
      <dc:creator>wukunpeng</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2001-12-22T04:54:04Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: CSS and etherchannel support</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/application-networking/css-and-etherchannel-support/m-p/13100#M130</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Increased availability.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Given a data center architecture designed to avoid STP yet giving a high level of availability, the lack of GEC on the arrowpoints means that a failure of that link offers two choices in a failure model: a) use 2 parallel links and be forced to introduce STP w/ uplinkfast to the network or b) fail over to the redundant arrowpoint unit.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Support for GEC/FEC means I'd have access to a less painful initial fail-over option before resorting to failing over the entire box.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Sat, 22 Dec 2001 06:23:06 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/application-networking/css-and-etherchannel-support/m-p/13100#M130</guid>
      <dc:creator>sbirn</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2001-12-22T06:23:06Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: CSS and etherchannel support</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/application-networking/css-and-etherchannel-support/m-p/13101#M131</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Right,FEC or GEC can avoid single link failure,but it can not avoid session state loss.FEC or GEC is layer two technology,when a link of FEC or GEC broken,some transitting data will be loss.If the critical app running the platform,I think your customer will be despair.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;So,I suggest,when customer needing robust e-business platform,you had better design redundance L7-switch to deploy stateful failover.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Sat, 22 Dec 2001 07:18:23 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/application-networking/css-and-etherchannel-support/m-p/13101#M131</guid>
      <dc:creator>wukunpeng</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2001-12-22T07:18:23Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: CSS and etherchannel support</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/application-networking/css-and-etherchannel-support/m-p/13102#M132</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;I do have redundant CSS units.  But even that failover is going to risk a few stray packets.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;It will work fine failing over to the other unit, and I have no issues with leaving it at that.  But if the only problem is a cut/bad cable, I'd just as soon minimize the actions needed in order to recover.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Sat, 22 Dec 2001 18:48:21 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/application-networking/css-and-etherchannel-support/m-p/13102#M132</guid>
      <dc:creator>sbirn</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2001-12-22T18:48:21Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: CSS and etherchannel support</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/application-networking/css-and-etherchannel-support/m-p/13103#M133</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;"L7 switch dedicates Layer 4-7 function performance,Not low layer data throughput. &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Could you tell me what's the significance CSS support FEC or GEC? Thanks."&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Could you explain this a little further? If I am using the CSS as a simple layer 3 loadbalancing switch to distribute high-volume website traffic accross a webserver farm, why would low-level data throughput not be a priority over (or at least along with) the higher layer functionality? Is there a way to increase the bandwidth without using FEC, or is this swtich simply not designed for this purpose, and I need to buy a gigabit ethernet load balancer?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I ask because I've got serious bandwidth issues on my CSS11050 that I'm using in a performance/scalability lab, when using it to loadbalance heavy-XML content webservices my FE NICs are maxed out.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 05 Mar 2002 21:02:37 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/application-networking/css-and-etherchannel-support/m-p/13103#M133</guid>
      <dc:creator>BrianATL</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2002-03-05T21:02:37Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: CSS and etherchannel support</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/application-networking/css-and-etherchannel-support/m-p/13104#M134</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Is there any more infomation on the idea of a CSS 11152 running etherchannel?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 20 Jun 2002 11:32:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/application-networking/css-and-etherchannel-support/m-p/13104#M134</guid>
      <dc:creator>6rdold</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2002-06-20T11:32:00Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

