Switches, Hubs, and Modems
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

LACP between Cisco and Procurve

Superdust
Advisor

LACP between Cisco and Procurve

Hello

I have a wireless p2p brige with 25Mbps capacity between 2 buildings.

In one building there is a Procurve2626 switch, in the other there is a Cisco 3550.

The wireless bridge is transparent L2.

Now I want to expand using another wireless bridge to get more capacity.
I have another brige lying we don`t use anymore witch is the same type as we are cyrrently use.

I used this config on the Cisco:

Cat-3550# configure terminal
Cat-3550 (config)# interface gigabitEthernet 0/1
Cat-3550 (config-if)# no ip address
Cat-3550 (config-if)# channel-protocol lacp
Cat-3550 (config-if)# channel-group 1 mode active
Cat-3550 (config-if)# exit
Cat-3550 (config)# interface gigabitEthernet 0/2
Cat-3550 (config-if)# no ip address
Cat-3550 (config-if)# channel-protocol lacp
Cat-3550 (config-if)# channel-group 1 mode active
Cat-3550 (config-if)# exit
Cat-3550 (config)# exit

And this on the Procurve

runk 12,13 trk1 lacp

But I just get storming.

How shuld I do this config?
6 REPLIES
André Beck
Honored Contributor

Re: LACP between Cisco and Procurve

Hi,

I wouldn't expect LACP to pass through a bridge. I haven't looked it up, but all those link-local communications protocols are usually special multicast destinations assigned from an IEEE range that shall not be forwarded, like BPDUs and PAUSEs. I would expect the bridge (wireless or not) to sink them locally.

The odd thing, though, is that you would not get an LACP link up without LACP in the first place, so no way for it to storm. Are you sure the bridges are not actually speaking LACP themselves?

I would rule out an "airgap" shortcut, but only because I haven't seen what the ports actually see as LACP neighbors. Maybe they even see themselves or their same-switch siblings...

IMO the only sane way to do this would be routing, but it rules out the ProCurves. Even those that can route somewhat decently cannot load balance in a more than pathetic way, and they haven't got routed interfaces either. Maybe you can place another 3550/60 at the other side ;)

Andre.
Superdust
Advisor

Re: LACP between Cisco and Procurve

Thank you for quick reply.

Actualy I was not testing the LACP through the wireless bridges, I just tested it with patch cables in my office.

What could be wrong?
André Beck
Honored Contributor

Re: LACP between Cisco and Procurve

Re,

> Actualy I was not testing the LACP through
> the wireless bridges, I just tested it with
> patch cables in my office.

Ah yep. Should work then, though I haven't actually tried to connect Cisco and HP using LACP aggregates so far.

> What could be wrong?

VLAN tagging in combination with PVST+ versus SSTP issues could probably wreak enough havoc to get you into stormy network weather. It's still strange, though - LACP should take care of links that are not configured correctly on both sides. ProCurve switches often have passive LACP enabled and happily build aggregates with whoever requests them, but the feature is mostly useless because the properties of the trunk (especially its VLAN membership) cannot be controlled (drops back to the default VLAN).

Is the storm really coming up as a loop between the two LACP controlled links? Or are their other paths in your test setup?

Andre.
Dmitry G. Spitsyn
Trusted Contributor

Re: LACP between Cisco and Procurve

Hi !

You may need to enable UDLD.
But I'm not sure ProCurve 2626 and Cisco 3550 support it.

Good luck,
Dmitry
Dmitry G. Spitsyn
Trusted Contributor

Re: LACP between Cisco and Procurve

You may also try to set up a static port aggregation between two devices without use of lacp bpdus at all.

Good luck,
Dmitry
Superdust
Advisor

Re: LACP between Cisco and Procurve

Ok Dmitry

How do I setup this on the 2626 and the 3550?
Haven`t tryed it before.