Thank you, that is very well explained.
Here is why I don't use dynamic protocols:
When I design a network I don't design a network where PCs are connected to link-aggregated ports on a switch. It just doesn't happen.
In fact, I really can't remember using link aggregation on copper ports, and although I deal with PCs that use fibre connectivity at the access layer, those networks are so tightly controlled that I'm pretty sure if anybody connected a PC to link agg port, they'd be fed to the sharks, and rightly so.
As with many of us I guess, my formal network training was originally in Cisco. Cisco had (from memory)
"passive" - which was rubbish and a complete waste of time
"active" - which really only worked in a pure Cisco environment
"on" - which worked.
From there, as we tried to get our customers to stop wasting their money on Cisco, and as we added good stuff like HP Procurve to their networks, we used Cisco "ON" and HP "Trunk" and it all worked fine.
I have implemented recent 3COM networks. It is powerful kit, and on the whole, it's the way to go for a good many applications, which pains me to say because I am so not a fan of the whole operation at 3COM, from design to business, to the security aspect of where it comes from. I can't recall my configs, but whatever it was, it was going to play nice with Cisco "On" and HP Procurve "Trunk", so nothing dynamic, regardless of how 3COM labels it.