Which of the following is the most accurate concerning the link configuration between Cisco
Unified Computing System 22XX I/O modules and Cisco Unified Computing System 62XX Fabric
Interconnects?
A.
Port channels are always recommended when using source-dest-mac load balancing.
B.
The addition of links to a port channel requires a reacknowledgement.
C.
You cannot mix and match discrete links and port channeling for different chassis when using
22XX.
D.
Port channels do not require a Global Chassis Discovery policy.
The chassis connectivity policy is created by Cisco UCS Manager only when the hardware configuration supports fabric port channels. At this time, only the 6200 series fabric interconnects and the 2200 series IOMs support this feature. For all other hardware combinations, Cisco UCS Manager does not create a chassis connectivity policy.
To add or remove chassis links from a fabric port channel after making a change to the chassis discovery policy or the chassis connectivity policy, reacknowledge the chassis. Chassis reacknowledgement is not required to enable or disable chassis member ports from a fabric port channel
This is a weird question the answer here is A according to the site but according to the question this concerns links between the IO module and the fabric Interconnect
So would think B would be more correct
0
0
Does addition of links to a port channel actually require a reacknowledgement??
In my view NO. Because, If we want to use the links then it need a reacknowledgement. Otherwise it doesn’t require a reacknowledgement.
At the same time answer A is true.
1
0
Hi all,
I think Port channels are always recommended and not only using source-dest-mac load balancing.
I think B is the correct one.
What do you think?
Regards
0
0