1801 router - Port Aggregation

Not saying its not possible as I have not used those smaller routers, but I have never heard of a router doing etherchannel or link aggregation. Router interfaces can't be addressed in the same network, so it would have to be a layer 2 aggregation, and I don't think a router of that size would support that kind of bandwidth anyway, particularly if you had another two ports aggregated to go elsewhere in the network. If it is supported, I would check for interface port-channel at the config prompt, or a port channel command on the interface itself. Perhaps someone on here w/ more 1800 experience can answer more definitively.

try

interface port-channel 1

interface FastEthernet x/y no ip address channel-group 1 mode on

interface FastEthernet x/z no ip address channel-group 1 mode on

Via Cisco's feature navigator, etherchannel is not available on the

1800 or any other router for that matter (minus 4500/6500/7600's, etc which are switch chassis that support routing cards). So unless they call ios port-channeling something other than etherchannel (which is what it is technically), you are out of luck.

Darn it, oh well looks like I'll be stuck with a 100 meg link :( though I could separate the VLANs out and patch each VLAN into the router on a separate feed - that should give at least some extra bandwidth?

Ste

Yes, and if you had a slightly higher end switch, you could throw on two virtual interfaces in the same routing protocol and let ospf or whatever use them as equal cost paths to whatever is down stream. Of course you would want these as routing networks and not user networks, but that would work. Else you can split your nodes across the networks that are gateway'ed on the router's ethernet interfaces, and buy yourself some additional bandwidth as you outlined above as well.

Since 1801 will not be able to handle even 100Mbps, nothing to worry about :-)

Regards, Andrey.

Not sure why my first post did not take. Anyway, yes you could do that, split your nodes across the subnets and go that route. Of course if you had a slightly better switch, you could create two virtual interfaces and make those two subnets routing networks with equal cost load balancing to whatever is up-stream. You wouldn't want your actual nodes in those vlans, but that could work nicely. Either way, you have some options to help split the load or help balance the traffic.