Резервирование L2 — различия между версиями
Moiseevvi (обсуждение | вклад) (Новая страница: «LAG LAcP MLAG UDLD BFD категория:Лекции Категория:Сети Category:Cisco Category:NAT») |
Moiseevvi (обсуждение | вклад) (→Link tracking) |
||
| (не показано 5 промежуточных версий этого же участника) | |||
| Строка 1: | Строка 1: | ||
| − | LAG | + | =LAG= |
| − | + | =LACP= | |
| − | + | =PAgP= | |
| − | |||
| − | |||
| + | =MLAG= | ||
| + | =UDLD= | ||
| + | =BFD= | ||
| + | =Link tracking= | ||
| + | <code> | ||
| + | |||
| + | Switch(config)#link state track 1 | ||
| + | Switch(config)#int fa 0/1 | ||
| + | Switch(config-if)#link state group 1 upstream | ||
| + | Switch(config-if)#int fa 0/4 | ||
| + | Switch(config-if)#link state group 1 downstream | ||
| + | |||
| + | Switch(config)#int fa 0/25 | ||
| + | Switch(config-if)#channel-group 4 mode active | ||
| + | Switch(config-if)#int fa 0/26 | ||
| + | Switch(config-if)#channel-group 4 mode active | ||
| + | |||
| + | Просмотр состояния агрегированного канала номер 2 | ||
| + | |||
| + | Switch#sh etherchannel | ||
| + | Switch#sh int po2 | ||
| + | |||
| + | </code> | ||
| + | |||
| + | =Flex link= | ||
| + | |||
| + | =REP= | ||
| + | |||
| + | =Fate Sharing= | ||
| + | The underlying assumption is simple: if the routing protocol manages to exchange information between adjacent nodes, there won’t be any problems with the user traffic. Furthermore, if the routing protocol updates in a distance vector protocol made it from egress router to ingress router, the traffic should experience no problems when being sent in the reverse direction. | ||
| + | http://blog.ipspace.net/2014/08/fate-sharing-in-ip-networks.html | ||
[[категория:Лекции]] | [[категория:Лекции]] | ||
[[Категория:Сети]] | [[Категория:Сети]] | ||
[[Category:Cisco]] [[Category:NAT]] | [[Category:Cisco]] [[Category:NAT]] | ||
Текущая версия на 06:23, 28 апреля 2016
Содержание
LAG
LACP
PAgP
MLAG
UDLD
BFD
Link tracking
Switch(config)#link state track 1
Switch(config)#int fa 0/1
Switch(config-if)#link state group 1 upstream
Switch(config-if)#int fa 0/4
Switch(config-if)#link state group 1 downstream
Switch(config)#int fa 0/25
Switch(config-if)#channel-group 4 mode active
Switch(config-if)#int fa 0/26
Switch(config-if)#channel-group 4 mode active
Просмотр состояния агрегированного канала номер 2
Switch#sh etherchannel
Switch#sh int po2
Flex link
REP
Fate Sharing
The underlying assumption is simple: if the routing protocol manages to exchange information between adjacent nodes, there won’t be any problems with the user traffic. Furthermore, if the routing protocol updates in a distance vector protocol made it from egress router to ingress router, the traffic should experience no problems when being sent in the reverse direction. http://blog.ipspace.net/2014/08/fate-sharing-in-ip-networks.html
