Is the requirement of 2n number of ports for EtherChannel a critical requirement or just a recommendation to ensure, perhaps, an even load balancing?
Particularly, if we setup an EtherChannel group with 8 ports but one of them went down. Would the remaining 7 ports still be functional but with uneven load balance, or would 3 ports be forced into standalone to ensure a power of two group?
Is it dealt with similarly for both PAgP and LACP?
Best Answer
The power of 2 requirement varies per vendor/hardware/software. Cisco had (has) a pretty bad stigma against them with a lot of the earlier catalyst switches capable of 10G. The problem comes with how the software hashes (or "balances") data over the multiple ports in the port-channel (this is agnostic of PAgP or LACP).
This post does an excellent job of simplifying the problem in finer detail. This is less relevant today with hardware/software improvements, but again, it varies - so just check your hardware requirements and make sure you're not buying older hardware that falls victim to this problem.
http://www.packetmischief.ca/2012/07/24/doing-etherchannel-over-3-5-6-and-7-link-bundles/