EtherChannel Question

[PrimeYeti]

Hi There,

Currently messing around on Packet Tracer with EtherChannels and I just wondered why in the below image 2 interfaces show as down on each switch and if this is by design? It's a very basic setup, Fa0/1, Fa0/2, and Fa0/3 are all their default config (duplex, speed, trunk/access mode, etc.) and they are all in an EtherChannel on each switch.

Not currently having issues with it just more out of curiosity. Thanks!

[MHM Cisco World]

port member config 
interface range f0/0-4 
switchport access vlan 1
channel group 1 mode active 
!
interface port-channel 1 
switchport access vlan 1

that it. 

[PrimeYeti]

Not sure what I did differently this time but all interfaces look to be up now. I just did the below on both switches.

interface range f0/0-3
channel group 1 mode active

If I don't explicitly set the 'switchport access vlan 1' command surely this would just be the default? Since all interfaces will be access for VLAN 1 as standard.

[MHM Cisco World]

It default, but to be sure I prefer config switchport access vlan 1 under the PO also. 

[PrimeYeti]

Makes sense, thank you!

[MHM Cisco World]

you are so so welcome

and remember use range in config of port member of PO, 

this prevent STP blk the port.

have a nice day 

[PrimeYeti]

I think this may have been what I missed the first time. I didn't think about it being a big deal but apparently it is

[Joseph W. Doherty]

"Not currently having issues with it just more out of curiosity."

I will say, my experience, across a couple of decades, getting Etherchannel to initially work, was often "interesting"; often several iterations of applying commands at the link interfaces and the port-channel interface were required.  (Once it began to work, usually it worked just fine.)

Also over the decades, getting Etherchannel to initially work has seemed to become easier, additionally, later Etherchannel implementations require less and less configuring at the physical port interfaces.

Lastly, PT, itself, often poorly simulated real Cisco platforms, but PT, too, has evolved and improved!  Still, with PT, whatever it's simulating, might be done partially or incorrectly.