Q about nic teaming /lacp

[khaliqamar]

I am having a strange network problem

in my whole infrastructure we are using "route based on originating virtual port ID " nic teaming however at switch level (not at esxi level) we have enabled LACP/etherchannel. (on catalyst switches)

which works .

We recently bought some new 10gig switches and network engineer is not able to see any LACP traffic.

I am having a virtual switch and using a same nic teaming which dont required any settings at physical switch level.

LACP must have the load balancing policy set to IP hash load which currently i am not using and i cant use it because i dont have vDS.

so why catalyst switches can perform a lacp at switch level but not  new nexus switches.

[kermic]

Standard Switches do not support / use LACP.

The only "aggregation" you can use with standard vSwitch is Source-Destination IP Hash, which requires Etherchannel, not LACP.

LACP is a dynamic protocol that allows network devices to negotiate link aggregation. Etherchannel is a link aggregation as well however it's STATIC - no negotiation goes on between switches (virtual and physical in our case).

LACP is only supported and will only work with dVS. And even then it's not really plug-and-play, you would have to set up the Link Aggregation Groups on your dvSwitches and configure hosts appropriately.

Just to summarize - with standard switches you won't see any LACP activity. And if you are only using the default "Originating Virtual Port ID" policy, you don't even need Etherchannell configured on your physical switches. It might be beneficial however in case you at some point figure out that for some portgroups you'd like to switch to "Source-Destination IP Hash" teaming policy (this one is supported on Standard vSwitches).

Hope this helps.

[khaliqamar]

today i have asked some other network team guy and he told me that there is no LACP/bond on other switches.

So there was a mistake from the network guy who told me the switches are configured for LACP.

But thank you Kermic - I think your answer is having a lot of information.