Cisco – Should portfast be configured on the physical interfaces or on the logical port-channel, or both

ciscocisco-3750cisco-catalystport-channelspanning tree

I'm using a Cisco 3750 switch and have two physical ports configured in a port channel that connects to a router. Should I configure spanning-tree portfast on the physical interfaces or on the port-channel virtual interface, or both?

Best Answer

Port-channeling is a way to bypass the topology limitation of spanning-tree allowed to only having a single path. In spanning tree, the logical topology of the data-plane will arrange itself into a logical tree where you can only have 1 active link between the same two devices.

By implementing a LAG (link aggregation group: aka Port Channel) you fool spanning tree into thinking it is one single port instead of a multiple ports. So from this perspective spanning tree does NOT see the underlying ports, only the LAG itself.

To answer your question you can put it on both without issue, but it will only take effect on the port channel as spanning tree does not see the member ports.


A better practice would be to actually enable spanning-tree portfast default globally. This would allow any port that does NOT receive bpdu packets to behave as an edge port and accelerate the spanning tree process. More importantly if you bounce a portfast "edge" port it will NOT trigger a spanning tree TCN (topology change notification).


This is all assuming you're using the LAG port as an access port. If you're trunking vlans across the port, you need to specifically enable portfast for trunks.

I hope this helps to clear things up.