how to create eth channel or port channel on uplink ports

[robertkwild]

hi all,

on my switch i have made two uplinks to another switch (my core switch which carries all the vlans 35,110,130,240,250)

interface TengigabitEthernet1/0/1
spanning-tree link-type point-to-point
switchport mode trunk
switchport trunk allowed vlan remove 1,7,999
macro description switch
!next command is internal.
macro auto smartport dynamic_type switch
!

interface TengigabitEthernet1/0/2
spanning-tree link-type point-to-point
switchport mode trunk
switchport trunk allowed vlan remove 1,7,999
macro description switch
!next command is internal.
macro auto smartport dynamic_type switch
!

i would like to combine them so they use all the two ports/interfaces instead of just using one so instead of 1gb i get 2gb as i want much throughput or performance as possible

my core switch is a ubiquiti NOT a cisco so will this be a problem?

thanks,

rob

[Peter Paluch]

Hello Rob,

Obviously, we cannot authoritatively comment on the Ubiquity switch capabilities since this forum targets on Cisco products. However, what I can say at least in general is this: Try searching in the configuration guide or on the internet whether your Ubiquity switch supports the EtherChannel / Port Channel / Link Aggregation / LACP (any of these names refers to the same technology). If it does, there is a high chance you will be able to set up an EtherChannel between your Catalyst and the Ubiquity switch. Also, if you can share the exact type of your Ubiquity switch, we can try to Google for the necessary support on that model - please note, though, that this will come at no guarantee since we do not specialize in Ubiquity products.

Looking forward to hearing from you!

Best regards,
Peter

[robertkwild]

thanks peter!

i have a

https://www.broadbandbuyer.com/products/26479-ubiquiti-us-48/?gclid=Cj0KCQiAsJfhBRCaARIsAO68ZM4Dqpn9AuhYB3mF4UQxNyIceccEUXDzgMfybqm19qBpdNW--dMzgIEaAnMmEALw_wcB

i will check out the ubiquiti to see if it can do etherchannel/portchannel etc

[robertkwild]

is this it

https://i.postimg.cc/QMrXhYwm/agg.png

[Peter Paluch]

Hi Rob,

I believe it is. Check this document:

https://help.ubnt.com/hc/en-us/articles/360007279753-UniFi-USW-Configuring-Link-Aggregation-Groups-LAG-

I suggest you use the Auto option as the Link Negotiation, and on the Catalyst side, configure both ports using channel-group 1 mode active command. This should enable the LACP (Link Aggregation Control Protocol) as the signalling protocol to negotiate the EtherChannel creation.

Best regards,
Peter

[Joseph W. Doherty]

In addition to what Peter notes (hi Peter!), since you're looking to obtain ". . . i want much throughput or performance as possible", you may need to adjust the hashing [load balancing) algorithm being used. Cisco switches generally offer multiple choices (IP src/dest, if available, often being a good choice), but what's best is really determined by your traffic. Also, even the "best" choice will not always provide a nice 50/50 split, especially for short term.

Understand, at least on Cisco switches, one flow will never obtain more than one link's bandwidth, and for two links, at best, you'll probably only average a 50% aggregate/average bandwidth improvement.

Like Peter, unable to comment on how the Ubiquity switch will behave.

[robertkwild]

thank you guys!!!

i imagine as soon as i set up the aggregation on the ubiquiti side i will lose telnet access on the cisco switch so i need to locally set up aggregation on there via a console port?

do i do this -

conf
interface port-channel 1
end
conf
int range te1/0/1-2
channel-group 1 mode active

[Joseph W. Doherty]

Maybe, maybe not, Again, cannot comment on the Ubiquiti switch.

However, on Cisco switches, what I've done is: convert just one link to LAG, let STP block one of the two links (you might encounter an access "blip"), then once you're sure the LAG link is working, convert the second link to join the LAG group (again, you might encounter an access "blip"). (NB: I've made such changes from one side of the US to the other, without issue, other than the noted "blip" [due to STP reconvergence].)

BTW, when possible, when working via telnet, do "link down changes" first on the "near side" (so you can reverse them if unable to regain access via the other path to the "far side").

[robertkwild]

mmm... not working on my SG350 switch

studio1(config)#int range te1/0/1-2
studio1(config-if-range)#channel-group 2 mode active
% bad parameter value

[Joseph W. Doherty]

Sorry, I'm unfamiliar with SG switches.

Also, BTW, you're changing both ports at the same time, which might be fine, but just noting it's not using my suggestion to only convert one link to LAG, and insure it works, before converting the other. Again, no need to do it that way if you have no concern about dropping both links between the two switches.

[Peter Paluch]

Hi Rob, hi Joe,

Rob, would you mind trying to remove the macro lines from your Te1/0/1 and Te1/0/2 before applying the channel-group command? I suspect it is interfering with the creation of the Port-channel interface. Also make sure that the Port-channel interface does not exist before configuring the channel-group command; if it does, and you know it is not being used for a working EtherChannel, remove it beforehand.

Best regards,
Peter

[robertkwild]

OK I will do this Monday and get back to you guys

Yeah I find that odd it puts macro lines in after the config...

I will do a 'sh int st' to see if any port groups are being used

Thanks guys!

Rob

[robertkwild]

Another question is this is a Sg350 switch so will the commands be the same as true cisco switches

[robertkwild]

ok think i know why

studio1(config-if-range)#channel-group 1 mode
  on                   Add port without LACP
  auto                 Add port with LACP
studio1(config-if-range)#channel-group 1 mode auto

now i done that, i tested it with some other ports and now i want to delete port channel 1 but i cant

when i do

config

no int port-channel 1

it doesnt let me

resolved it

int range te1/0/3-4

no channel-group

[robertkwild]

mmm...

seems like it doesnt like the ubiquiti switch when i make both the cisco and ubiquiti switches both ports aggregate

i think the problem is the ubiquiti switch