Redundant 6500 sup module behavior
Bookmark this page:
 Yahoo!
 Google
 Windows Live
 del.icio.us
 digg
 Netscape
|
|
|||||||||||||
|
Posted by linguafr on August 6, 2008, 1:45 pm
Please log in for more thread options I understand that you can only run in active-standby mode, however, I've read that the interfaces on the standby unit are active. Does this mean you can forward L2 traffic through them? Thx | |||||||||||||
|
Posted by Trendkill on August 6, 2008, 2:00 pm
Please log in for more thread options How would you forward it, make the spantree priority lower? Even then, the other module would be routing in/out of the VLAN, so what would this really buy you in terms of balancing, presuming that is what you are after? Not sure I follow the requirement. | |||||||||||||
|
Posted by linguafr on August 6, 2008, 2:16 pm
Please log in for more thread options
>
> > I understand that you can only run in active-standby mode, however,
> > I've read that the interfaces on the standby unit are active. Does > > this mean you can forward L2 traffic through them? >
> > Thx
>
> How would you forward it, make the spantree priority lower? Even > then, the other module would be routing in/out of the VLAN, so what > would this really buy you in terms of balancing, presuming that is > what you are after? Not sure I follow the requirement. For use as additional uplink ports or redundant ports. If the active sup goes down it provides L2 redundancy I noticed this reference With Release 12.2(18)SXD and earlier releases, when a redundant supervisor engine is in standby mode, the two Gigabit Ethernet interfaces on the redundant supervisor engine are always active. In this doc. This is apparently referring to a 720, while we're going with 32s so I'm not clear on distinctions in this behavior or if this implies the ports are actually active in spanning-tree, etc. http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/switches/lan/catalyst6500/ios/12.2SXF/native/configuration/guide/nsfsso.html#wp1118191 | |||||||||||||
|
Posted by Trendkill on August 6, 2008, 3:05 pm
Please log in for more thread options
>
> > > > I understand that you can only run in active-standby mode, however,
> > > I've read that the interfaces on the standby unit are active. =A0Does > > > this mean you can forward L2 traffic through them? >
> > > Thx
>
> > How would you forward it, make the spantree priority lower? =A0Even
> > then, the other module would be routing in/out of the VLAN, so what > > would this really buy you in terms of balancing, presuming that is > > what you are after? =A0Not sure I follow the requirement. >
sco.com/en/US/docs/switches/lan/catalyst6500/ios/12.2SXF...
> For use as additional uplink ports or redundant ports. =A0If the active > sup goes down it provides L2 redundancy > I noticed this reference > With Release 12.2(18)SXD and earlier releases, when a redundant > supervisor engine is in standby mode, the two Gigabit Ethernet > interfaces on the redundant supervisor engine are always active. > In this doc. =A0This is apparently referring to a 720, while we're going > with 32s so I'm not clear on distinctions in this behavior or if this > implies the ports are actually active in spanning-tree, etc.http://www.ci= Ah I'm with you. So you are trying to use the physical ports on the sup's for hot standby in case the other ports go down. In this case you can't channel them with the ports on the first sup, because I don't think you can channel ports on different modules. Which means these would be a 2nd set of links to the same switch as the first set of supervisors (probably links to a 2nd sup on the other switch). So unless you are connecting different networks, I would think that these are not actively forwarding traffic. If you were connecting them to different switches it would work, but presuming the modules are for full physical/logical redundancy, I don't see how the ports would be sending/receiving traffic if its the same config, same trunk or connection, etc. I could be missing something.... | |||||||||||||
|
Posted by on August 21, 2008, 10:05 am
Please log in for more thread options
>
> > > > > > > > I understand that you can only run in active-standby mode, however,
es
> > > > I've read that the interfaces on the standby unit are active. =A0Do= > > > > this mean you can forward L2 traffic through them?
>
> > > > Thx
>
> > > How would you forward it, make the spantree priority lower? =A0Even
> > > then, the other module would be routing in/out of the VLAN, so what > > > would this really buy you in terms of balancing, presuming that is > > > what you are after? =A0Not sure I follow the requirement. >
> > For use as additional uplink ports or redundant ports. =A0If the active
g
> > sup goes down it provides L2 redundancy > > I noticed this reference > > With Release 12.2(18)SXD and earlier releases, when a redundant > > supervisor engine is in standby mode, the two Gigabit Ethernet > > interfaces on the redundant supervisor engine are always active. > > In this doc. =A0This is apparently referring to a 720, while we're goin= > > with 32s so I'm not clear on distinctions in this behavior or if this
cisco.com/en/US/docs/switches/lan/catalyst6500/ios/12.2SXF...
> > implies the ports are actually active in spanning-tree, etc.http://www.= >
> Ah I'm with you. =A0So you are trying to use the physical ports on the > sup's for hot standby in case the other ports go down. =A0In this case > you can't channel them with the ports on the first sup, because I > don't think you can channel ports on different modules. =A0Which means > these would be a 2nd set of links to the same switch as the first set > of supervisors (probably links to a 2nd sup on the other switch). =A0So > unless you are connecting different networks, I would think that these > are not actively forwarding traffic. =A0If you were connecting them to > different switches it would work, but presuming the modules are for > full physical/logical redundancy, I don't see how the ports would be > sending/receiving traffic if its the same config, same trunk or > connection, etc. =A0I could be missing something.... i'd like to give some comments.... what about uplink using in "ring" L2 topology, where each ring's side created on Sup's uplinks??? thanks | |||||||||||||
| Similar Threads | Posted |
| Redundant 6500 sup module behavior | August 6, 2008, 1:45 pm |
| Cat 6500 with E1 controller module | July 19, 2005, 2:27 am |
| 6500 Software for redundant sup32 setup | August 20, 2008, 3:46 pm |
| 6500 SSL module config synchronization possible? | November 4, 2005, 5:10 am |
| 6500/7600 Sup module performance specs | August 4, 2008, 1:36 pm |
| Cisco 6500 backplane sockets / module positions | April 13, 2007, 5:17 am |
| 6500 with content switch module drop the packet which has the different MAC from previous one. | April 13, 2006, 8:19 pm |
| Odd behavior in a DMZ | March 5, 2007, 4:42 pm |
| Strange PIX behavior | October 11, 2006, 9:40 pm |
| ASA Vs. PIX RemoteAccess VPN behavior | March 11, 2007, 10:24 am |
| IOS 12.2 Cisco MWR 1900 NAT behavior | July 21, 2005, 1:33 pm |
| Strange behavior Ethernet0 on 837? | September 6, 2005, 2:55 pm |
| ip helper-address behavior | February 12, 2007, 3:03 pm |
| Cisco 11501 Erratic behavior | October 17, 2005, 9:43 am |
| Strange Aironet 1200 AP Behavior | July 19, 2006, 10:21 am |
> I've read that the interfaces on the standby unit are active. =A0Does
> this mean you can forward L2 traffic through them?
>
> Thx