SG500X LACP issue

stgeorges · ‎04-02-2013

Hi,

I'm having a strange issue with adding a port to a port channel on a SG500X (cab1). I have Port Channel 1 with Te1/1/1 as a member, I want to add Te2/1/1. These are connected to a Catalyst 6500 (Cat6500). However I get

cab1(config)#int TengigabitEthernet2/1/1
cab1(config-if)# channel-group 1 mode auto
Port te2/1/1 type differs from port-channel Po1 type.

I always get

Port te2/1/1 type differs from port-channel Po1 type.

Any pointers? I've 6 other of these swtiches (with the same firmware) and not seen this issue.

SG500X(cab1)

cab1#sh ver

Unit SW version Boot version HW version

------------------- ------------------- ------------------- -------------------

1 1.2.0.97 1.2.0.12 V01

2 1.2.0.97 1.2.0.12 V01

cab1#sh run interface Port-Channel 1

interface Port-channel1

description SWITCHULINK

spanning-tree link-type point-to-point

macro description switch

switchport trunk allowed vlan add 2,39-41,43,46,50,60,167-169,300

!next command is internal.

macro auto smartport dynamic_type switch

!

cab1#sh run int po1

interface Port-channel1

description SWITCHULINK

spanning-tree link-type point-to-point

macro description switch

switchport trunk allowed vlan add 2,39-41,43,46,50,60,167-169,300

!next command is internal.

macro auto smartport dynamic_type switch

!

cab1#sh run int TengigabitEthernet1/1/1

interface tengigabitethernet1/1/1

description SWITCHUPLINK

channel-group 1 mode auto

!

cab1#sh run int TengigabitEthernet2/1/1

interface tengigabitethernet2/1/1

description SWITCHUPLINK

!

cab1#conf t

cab1(config)#int TengigabitEthernet2/1/1

cab1(config-if)# channel-group 1 mode auto

Port te2/1/1 type differs from port-channel Po1 type.

Cat6500 config

Cat6500#sh run interface po17

Building configuration...

Current configuration : 123 bytes

!

interface Port-channel17

description CAB1

switchport

switchport trunk encapsulation dot1q

switchport mode trunk

end

Cat6500#sh run interface gi

Cat6500#sh run interface gigabitEthernet 4/24

Building configuration...

Current configuration : 158 bytes

!

interface GigabitEthernet4/24

description CAB1

switchport

switchport trunk encapsulation dot1q

switchport mode trunk

channel-group 17 mode active

end

Cat6500#sh run interface gigabitEthernet 9/42

Building configuration...

Current configuration : 158 bytes

!

interface GigabitEthernet9/42

description CAB1

switchport

switchport trunk encapsulation dot1q

switchport mode trunk

channel-group 17 mode active

Cat6500#sh etherchannel 17 summary

Flags: D - down P - bundled in port-channel

I - stand-alone s - suspended

H - Hot-standby (LACP only)

R - Layer3 S - Layer2

U - in use N - not in use, no aggregation

f - failed to allocate aggregator

M - not in use, no aggregation due to minimum links not met

m - not in use, port not aggregated due to minimum links not met

u - unsuitable for bundling

d - default port

w - waiting to be aggregated

Number of channel-groups in use: 20

Number of aggregators: 21

Group Port-channel Protocol Ports

------+-------------+-----------+-----------------------------------------------

17 Po17(SU) LACP Gi4/24(P) Gi9/42(I)

Last applied Hash Distribution Algorithm: Fixed

Tom Watts · ‎04-02-2013

Hi stgeorges, i'll first say I don't know the answer. However, the differences I do see is the macro has negotiated on the te1/1/1 which could be causing a 'difference' from the te2/1/1.

Can you delete the connection then use the interface range command to build the channel group? May also not be a bad idea to remove the physical connection or shut down the connection on the 6500 side.

-Tom
Please mark answered for helpful posts

-Tom Please mark answered for helpful posts http://blogs.cisco.com/smallbusiness/

stgeorges · ‎04-02-2013

Hi Tom,

Thanks for your reply I neglected to say I've tried various combinations of shutting down the C6500 port, SG500 port etc. I've not tried "interface range" command you suggest so will give that a try.

When you say "delete the connection" do you mean the Port Channel? I've a small problem in that the swtich is "remote" and I can't risk loosing the connection ATM. I'll be able to get to it physically tomorrow when I'm back in the office.

One other thing I've just noticed is this

cab1#sh interfaces configuration TengigabitEthernet 1/1/1

Flow Admin Back Mdix

Port Type Duplex Speed Neg control State Pressure Mode

-------- ------------ ------ ----- -------- ------- ----- -------- ----

te1/1/1 1G-Fiber Full 10000 Enabled Off Up Disabled Off

cab1#sh interfaces configuration TengigabitEthernet 2/1/1

Flow Admin Back Mdix

Port Type Duplex Speed Neg control State Pressure Mode

-------- ------------ ------ ----- -------- ------- ----- -------- ----

te2/1/1 10G-Fiber Full 10000 Disabled Off Up Disabled Off

Both of these **should** be 1G-Fiber. I'll check the SFP in the morning but I'm sure we ordered only 1G SFP's not 10G.

Not sure if this would cause it tho.

Tom Watts · ‎04-02-2013

Well, when adding the channel group the 6500 is probably going to err-disable, there isn't an out of band management? If you're using 1 gig links I'm not sure why you're using the ten gig ports. But yeah, your 10 gig links are reporting 10g, what sfp did you order?

-Tom
Please mark answered for helpful posts

-Tom Please mark answered for helpful posts http://blogs.cisco.com/smallbusiness/

stgeorges · ‎04-02-2013

Hi Tom,

No, no out of band management on these I'm afraid. Cheep(ish) and cheerful was the order of the day when providing this connectivity:-)

The SFP's we ordered are P/N MGBSX1.

We're using the TE ports since we need the distance, as AFAIK the SG500X has 2 x Stack ports and 2 x 1G/10G SFP ports for use in the defualt stacking mode. FYI we're using the default staching option from p10-11 of this, so they should support 1G or 10G

http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/switches/lan/csbms/Sx500/quick_start/500_Series_QSG.pdf

TE2/1/1 is definilty coming up a 10G optics for some reason so it could be we've either had a wrong SFP shipped or we've mistakenly plugged in an incompatible SFP which is confusing it.

Dan