Behaviour of "stand-alone" port member on etherchannel

[dchochan]

Hi All,

I want to ask regarding behaviour of "stand-alone" port member on etherchannel.

If we have following etherchannel issue which are the etherchannels down but each port operate individually.

blah_switch#show etherchannel 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: 23
Number of aggregators: 23

Group Port-channel Protocol Ports
------+-------------+-----------+-----------------------------------------------
20 Po20(SD) LACP Gi3/9(I) Gi3/12(I)
21 Po21(SD) LACP Gi4/8(I) Gi4/12(I)
22 Po22(SD) LACP Gi3/18(I) Gi3/19(I)
23 Po23(SD) LACP Gi4/18(I) Gi4/19(I)

Does the traffic being forwarded normally like normal access/trunk port?

I found out the those etherchannel member had mac address on each interface being recorded by CAM table

blah_switch#show mac address-table | inc 3/9|3/12

* 611 d039.ea19.cc68 dynamic Yes 30 Gi3/9

* 611 90e2.bac7.9a4d dynamic Yes 30 Gi3/12

And spanning tree run just normally for those each oh those etherchannels member port. As following:

blah_switch#show spanning-tree vlan 611

VLAN0611
Spanning tree enabled protocol ieee
Root ID Priority 49763
Address 001f.9e43.d700
This bridge is the root
Hello Time 2 sec Max Age 20 sec Forward Delay 15 sec

Bridge ID Priority 49763 (priority 49152 sys-id-ext 611)
Address 001f.9e43.d700
Hello Time 2 sec Max Age 20 sec Forward Delay 15 sec
Aging Time 300
Uplinkfast enabled

Interface Role Sts Cost Prio.Nbr Type
------------------- ---- --- --------- -------- --------------------------------
Gi3/9 Desg FWD 3004 128.265 P2p
Gi3/12 Desg FWD 3004 128.268 P2p
Gi3/18 Desg FWD 3004 128.274 P2p
Gi3/19 Desg FWD 3004 128.275 P2p
Gi4/8 Desg FWD 3004 128.392 P2p
Gi4/12 Desg FWD 3004 128.396 P2p
Gi4/18 Desg FWD 3004 128.402 P2p
Gi4/19 Desg FWD 3004 128.403 P2p

Thanks

[Georg Pauwen · Accepted solution]

Hello,

--> If we have following etherchannel issue which are the etherchannels down but each port operate individually.

Not really sure what you are asking. Why is the port channel down ? Post the configs of both sides of the port channel.

Either way, if the ports are 'standalone', that is, not member of a portchannel, they will be treated as redundant trunk/access port, and spanning-tree will block one of them...