Is static port channel a good idea?

During my CCIE R&S studies (CCIE Routing and Switching v5.0 Official Cert Guide, Volume 1), I have discovered an unexpected behavior of the static port channel: a Layer2 loop! Obviously, in order for that happen, several things must happen.

Suppose to have three switches:



The Ciscozine-ROOT switch, as the word suggest, is the root bridge (priority 4096); the Ciscozine-ROOT_SEC is the “backup root bridge” (priority 8192), while the Ciscozine-SW has the default priority.

Now suppose that:

  • the ports on the Ciscozine-ROOT_SEC switch toward Ciscozine-SW have already been bundled in a Port-channel using mode on (without Pagp or Lacp protocol).
  • the Ciscozine-SW has no yet configured a port-channel toward Ciscozine-ROOT_SEC; the interfaces are two independent trunks.

What will Spanning-tree do in this case?

  • The Ciscozine-ROOT is the root bridge; for that the two interfaces are designated.
  • The Ciscozine-ROOT_SEC and Ciscozine-SW interfaces toward Ciscozine-ROOT switch are root port.


And what happen to the interconnection between the Ciscozine-ROOT_SEC and Ciscozine-SW?

Because Port-channel interfaces are treated as single port by STP, only a single BPDU is sent for the entire Port-channel interface, regardless of how many physical links are bundled.


The #1 interface of Ciscozine-ROOT_SEC switch forward BPDUs and its neighbor interface (Ciscozine-SW interface #3) will set the interface to alternate (if it is used RSTP) or blocking (if it is used STP), because the BPDUs sent by Ciscozine-ROOT_SEC are superior, due the sender bridge id (priority 8192).



However, the interface #4 of Ciscozine-SW is not receiving any BPDUs, so becomes “Designated forwarding” and a switching loop is created!
Note: Even though such port (#4) sends BPDUs, they will be ignored by the Ciscozine-ROOT_SEC switch because they are inferior to its own BPDUs.


For these reasons two behaviors can happen:

  • STP (802.1D): a permanent switching loop is created!
  • RSTP (802.1w): a layer2 loop is created but blocked by the dispute mechanism, a feature of RSTP and MST.
    How dispute works? If a switch receives a BPDU that indicates that the neighboring switch is going into a state that it shouldn’t, for instance, if a port receives an inferior BPDU that shows a port becoming designated Learning or Forwarding port (not a root port – an inferior BPDU can indeed be received on a port that should be a root port), then the port will move itself into a discarding state.
    In this example, the Dispute mechanism would detect this problem and put the Port-channel to the Discarding state, preventing this loop.
    Remember: The STP dispute mechanism doesn’t need to be configured or activated.
    Note: The Dispute mechanism is yet another and standardized means to detect a unidirectional link.

For that, it is strongly recommended to use a dynamic negotiation protocol (Pagp or Lacp) to allow switches to negotiate the creation of a Port-channel and verify whether the links are eligible for bundling!


  1. Hi Fabio,great job!
    I’am a bit confused with this point. Sorry if you don’t understand my question but my English is poor.
    Why would be the ports toward Ciscozine-ROOT_SEC two independent trunks? I think is a misconfiguration. Does it work in a production environment?

    I mean, is practical have those two ports by this way or maybe someone deleted the config?, for example

    Thanks for your help


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.