I've upgraded a 6509 switches wich are running in VSS, from IOS 12.2 (33)SHI1 to 12.2 (33)SHI5. After that I'm facing the folowing log messages periodically. [code] I know that this is a diagnostic result from TestUnusedPortLoopback feature. But this interface is disabled (shutdown).
View 5 RepliesI am trying to convince our Technical Lead that dual VSL links between our 6509-E chassis is a VERY good idea but he is fully convinced that the setup will work perfectly fine with only one VSL link. As I do agree that we can do this, I am looking for more concrete evidence that shows this would be a bad setup.
I know that we will lose the High Availably that comes with VSS, what I don't know is what will happen to all of the downstream switches that are connected and what will happen to the two 6509-E chassis..
in my 6509 switch while i checked is showing some thing like this RDCCI65F0#sh environment
environmental alarms:
no alarms
backplane:
operating clock count: 2
[Code].....
How I can shutdown a module when I am running vsl.I can use the following command #hw-module module 2 shutdown.As I have modules in both switch 1 and switch 2 how can I ensure I only shut down module 2 in switch 1.
View 1 Replies View RelatedI'm working at a company that has several 6509 switches running CatOS. They have two of the 6509's running in vtp server mode and the rest as clients. I set up a new vlan from one of the vtp servers and it propagated out. The problem comes when I try to assign a port on one of the vtp clients to this new vlan. It gives me an error that the switch must be in vtp server mode to add/delete vlans. I'm not trying to add/or delete a vlan just trying to add a port into an existing vlan. I'm hesitant to put the switch in vtp server mode. Is this a CatOS thing or is there a specific command to accomplish this?
View 5 Replies View RelatedOne of our customer , where there 2 6509 switch , one is Core_sw1 and other is Core_sw2 , catering about 32 Vlan , and HSRP in running for all Vlans , till here no problem , now there internet Router which having one Internet link , which connected and configured on Core_sw1 in a way that one interface of Core_sw1 is given Public IP and there is vlan 85 which internet vlan and vlan 85 ip are natted with that public IP with one simple static route given toward internet router , this is how internet is working ok.
Now i have configured vlan 85 in hsrp as all other are , how can give redundancy to vlan 85 user , that if Core_sw1 get down , internet traffic can get out through Core_sw2.using same internet router with single internet link .i am not talking of ISP redundancy , but Vlan 85 in Core_sw1 goes down , other Core_sw2 will server internet.
If I have two stackable switches were only one stackable switch has two uplinks one uplink goes to one core 6509 switch and the other uplink goes to the other 6509 core switch can a Layer 3 etherchannel be used if each uplink go to a different core switch, by the way hsrp is running between both switches and also can you give an example how data will be routed from the stackable switch through the ethernetchannel to one of the core switch accross the WAN to another core switch?
View 1 Replies View RelatedLooking for feedback from other organizations that have large 3750 stacks. I've got one stack of (8) 3750's composed of (6) 3750G's and (2) plain 3750's. This particular stack is usually unresponsive to SNMP queries and often fails to write config when we make changes. After a couple tries it will finally go. Part of my probably here is likely the plain 3750's that always boot faster and come up as the master. I should manually set the master to one of the G's. What I'm wondering is who else has 7-9 3750's stacked and are they performing well for SNMP, telnet, etc? I've got another newer stack of 7 3750E's that I need to add one more switch to. Need to decide if I want extended downtime to break the stack up or just add the 3750X to make member 8 and hope it performs well. I have 50+ 3750 stacks working great on our campus.
View 1 Replies View RelatedWe are implementing NAC in our environment and unfortunately still some of our obsolete 6500 switches are running CATOS, the current (cat6000-sup2cvk9.8-6-4.bin) image does not support some of the commands related to NAC implementation. Therefore, I would like to urge you to provide me the 8.7 image which supports all the NAC related commands and will be easier to finish the long pending assignment.
We are in process of replacing the obselete hardware but that will take time.
So, 8.7 K9 CATOS image required.
My company is beginning to have a lot of sites were we are stacking 3 to 4 C2960S-48 switche.This is making "show running-config" very very long because of the 4 x 48 interfaces.I can’t find a CLI command that show me the running-config of a ranges of interfaces. If I for example would like to see running-config for switch 3 (interfaces 3/0/1-52)The Show Running-config will show all the interfaces (for the two first swtiche = 104 interfaces), which take a time before I reach to switch 3.I miss a CLI command like: show Running-config switch 3, or module 3, or show running-config interface range x/x/x-x ?I’m well aware of the CLI command show running-config interface x/x/x, but this will only show me one interface.
View 3 Replies View RelatedI want to setup HSRP between three 6509 switches with a single virtual ip for all the three switches.
know if its possible and share any site or config.
I have 2 6509 switches configured with VSS.As per advised my managment I have to enable SSH but it is not available existing IOS which is "s72033-ipbase-z.122-33.SXI3.bin". SSH available in "s72033-ipbasek9-mz.122-33.SXI10".
upgrade the IOS with VSS configured switches.
we are using cisco 6509 series switches as core switches. and Cisco 4510,4507 series switches as edge switches. all the vlans are created at core switches and propogating to edge switches through VTP. we are using OSPF as routing protocol at core switch for internal routing. till now we are using 4510,4507 switches as layer 2 switches. Since, 4510 & 4507 switches are hign end swithces i want use them as layer 3 switches instead of layer 2.if i change these switches from layer 2 to layer 3 does it make any impact on our network or better to keep them as layer 2 switches.if i change these switches to layer 3 is there any advantage i will have.
View 3 Replies View RelatedOn our backbone (Cisco 6509) we have the following config.
spanning-tree mode rapid-pvst
spanning-tree extend system-id
spanning-tree vlan 1-200 priority 24576
1. is rapid-pvst the best spanning tree protocol to use? on some switches we have pvst (not rapid)
2. do all switches in the LAN need to use the same protocol?
3. does line 3 :priority 24576 mean that someone set tis switch as root manually? how can one further enforce the backbone as root (so noone adds a old switch with lower root id)
In the next couple weekends I'm planning to add 2 CISCO UCS 6248UP Interconnects to 6509 Core Switches via 10G links.
Is there any impact anticipated? It's a production environment and no loss of up-time is acceptable.
I am trying to understand what load balancing method is used on a port channel on a Nexus switch . I have a server connected by a VPC to two Nexus switches. The nexus switches are only acting as layer 2 switches. I have a 6509 connected via a upstream link that does all of the routing for my VLANS. If have a server connected to the Nexus switches and it talks to a server on my 6509 what load balancing happens on the Nexus going across VPC 27 which is a layer 2 trunk going up to my 6509. Is it done on layer 2 or layer 3 flows?
My Nexus shows the default load balancing configurations
Port Channel Load-Balancing Configuration:System: source-dest-ip
Port Channel Load-Balancing Addresses Used Per-Protocol:Non-IP: source-dest-macIP: source-dest-ip source-dest-mac
Is it possible to use two different load balancing methods at each end of a port-channel between two switches?
We have a Cisco 6509 at one end of the port-channel and a Cisco blade switch 3020 at the other end. Right now, we are using "src-dst-ip" at both end of the port-channel. We would like to change this. That is, we would like the #3020 switch to use "src-dst-ip" while the 6509 switch should use the "src-dst-port".
Why we want to do this, the reason is that we have FWSMs on the 6509. I've read that by configuring "src-dst-port" on the 6509, one can get a better performance of traffic going through the FWSM. However, the issue is that the 3020 switch does not support "src-dst-port".
We are currently designing Layer 3 to the edge EIGRP solution for our customers. The network is a hybrid of collapsed core (Core to access) as well as a three layer design (Core/Distro/Access) for connectivity to the Data Centre, Internet, Wireless Blocks etc.The core of the network contains two 6509-E switches interconnected on a Layer 3 Port channel (no VSS). Access Layer switches (3750-X series running Stackwiseplus protocol) connect to the core switches over p2p routed links and Distribution layer switches (3750X stackwiseplus) provide connectivity to the Data centre, Internet, wireless blocks etc.
The access and distribution switch stacks(Cisco 3750-X) are set up with two or three member switches with uplinks multihomed to the primary and secondary core switch with each uplink included in EIGRP. In each of the stacks, one of the switches controls the operation of the stack, which will be the stack master.As the Cisco Stackwise architecture is not SSO-capable but NSF aware, all Layer 3 fuctions must be re-established during a master switch outage. To minimize control plane impact and improve Layer3 convergence, uplinks should be diverse and originate from the member switches instead of the Master switches in the respective stack. This is as per Cisco recommended design solution.The above solution can be setup if there are more than two switches in the stack. i.e. uplinks are configured on the backup member switch modules.
1.But what about stack with two switches..Which switch should be set up as the Master for a two member stack with uplinks to the core primary and secondary from each switch(Master and Backup)
2. For Layer 3 routing, does the routing takes precedene over switch failures? Say for eg. In a two member stack, the master switch with uplink to primary fails, does EIGRP provide a fast convergence to route traffic via backup secondary and does not wait for the control plane on the switch stack to converge? All the access to core links will be set up for ECMP.
I had a sw/reset on my 6509 switch. The info in the crashinfo file pointed me to bug CSCso89550.
The workaround for this issue is to disable the gold diagnostics tool.
connecting a 5548 pair to our core 6509s. Just want to be sure we don't introduce any issues into the network.The 6509's are connected and perform all the routing. Essentially, we're moving away from a 3750 stack in the data center and the 5548s are the replacement. We'd want to limit the vlans to the specific server network vlans. Our current setup is a port channel between the 3750 and each of the 2 6509s for redundancy. I'd like to use the same functionality when we connect the 5548's but I'm looking for what the config should look like to ensure no spanning tree loops are introduced and that it is configured optimally.
View 1 Replies View RelatedHow i can view the capacity throughput (backplane) of core switches (6509)? How i know much is in use?
View 2 Replies View RelatedThe 6509 Series Switches support the scenario VSS Active-Active Chassis, I would like to setup both switch's as one virtual switch but working at the same time, not with Active - Stand By Chassis.
My plans it to create PortChannel accross both Switches 6509 in order to have 2 links one connected to one slot/switch and the other connected to slot/switch in the second 6509 for servers redundancy.
I currently have a couple of 6509 chassis (router/switches) with the following hardware blades:
x3 48 ports
x1 NAM
x2 Sup720
Running 12.2(18)SXF3
I am keeping the four Sup720 modules and have purchased new versions of the others blades including two new 6509-E chassis?Can I take my stand-by Sup720 out of the production machine and insert it into the new chassis?
I currently have a couple of 6509 chassis (router/switches) with the following hardware blades:
x3 48 ports
x1 NAM
x2 Sup720
Running 12.2(18)SXF3.I am keeping the four Sup720 modules and have purchased new versions of the others blades including two new 6509-E chassis. Can I take my stand-by Sup720 out of the production machine and insert it into the new chassis?
I have 30 switched in my corporate network it’s all up and running all switches running by default configuration and connected to WS-C4506 core switch our dhcp server pooling 192.168.100.1/27 network. Now we need to configure new Vlan for finance department this department has more than 200 users. If my server distributes 192.168.200.0 range ip can vlan2 automatically assign ip 200.0 addresses to finance department.All switches running default config no ip address assigned.
View 9 Replies View RelatedI had to reset a 6509 MSFC2, using reset command on the switch. However when the msfc2 reloaded it had a different configuration than the starup-config. I have a daily backup of start-up config and it was very different from that. I had to make many changes to bring it back to normal. What now I dont get is from where did the msfc2 got this config file? and how can I avoid this from happening again... I want it to load start-up config when it loads. [code]
View 2 Replies View RelatedI have a stack of 2 x 3750X switches these are running 12.2(55)SE5. I needed to add some static IP routes and found that the ‘ip routing’ command is not supported. I came across a document that stated “On switches running the LAN base feature, static routing on VLANs is supported only with Cisco IOS Release 12.2(58)SE and later.” So I have upgraded to 12.2(58)SE2, but ‘ip routing’ is still not a valid command.
The release notes state:“On the Cisco Catalyst 3560-X and 3750-X Series, it adds support for 16 static IPv4 routes in the LAN Base image.”
I have read other posts that talk about running the ‘sdm prefer routing’ command which I have done, but I am still unable to add any routes or run the ‘ip routing’ command.
we've had an issue with our network, we have 2 6509 connected with redundancy, which are connected with 2 x 4900 Switches, from which are connected to a ESX Chassis for visualization, the thing is that the ESX stopped working, and the 4900 switches, and the main core were suffering from overload, they hang on it very well, in order to stop the overload, one of the links to the ESX Chassis were disconnected from one of the 4900 switches. The CPU usage from the 4900 and the core(6509) went down below 40%, and then they started to migrate the virtual servers from the chassis to another 2 chassis that were added right after. They were actually working well, but suddenly the 6509 changed to the other supervisor after everything was OK. We were wondering what could have been the cause of this, maybe the virtual servers migrations, maybe the overload from the ESX ? We also had a few question, is there any need to reload the cores every few months as a planned task ? Because the cores have been up for more than 1 year. And also is there any kind of of tool to monitor the CPU status, or the status overall from the cores or the switches ?
View 3 Replies View RelatedThe have around 80 staff and I think the current infrastructure is overkill for the size of the company. The current kit is old and they have no GB ethernet ports. They currently have:-
Core Switch:
1x Cisco c6509with a 48 port fast ethernet module (WS-X6248-RJ-45)
and an 8 port fibre module (WS-X6408A-GBIC)
I'm looking to replace this with something with 72 ethernet ports and 8 fibre ports
Access Switches:
2x 3500Replacement needs at least 48 ports and 2 fibre modules each
and 2x 5500Replacement needs at least 72 ports and 2 fibre modules each.
If client gateway = 192.168.64.9 then next-hop = 192.168.64.8 else use default-route 0.0.0.0
I know it's possible to do a route-map match ip-address ACL list. But is it possible to match on gateway?
Some info about hardware and config:
6509-E in VSS (IOS 12.2(17r)SX5) withVS-S720-10G supervisor.
All routes are static, IP for 192.168.64.9 is on SVI vlan.
I have two ISPs. Each is on it's own subnet connected to the 6509 MSFC/Switch. FW1 is on 100.1.100.0/30 and FW2 is on 200.1.200.0/30 subnet. My goal is route all traffice going to the Internet from subnet 10.133.3.0/24 to FW1 and all other subnets across the organization to FW2. I am not sure if I need to use ACL / Static route combo, or just a static routes or ACLS?
View 5 Replies View RelatedWe have a Catalyst 6509 switch, and we hope to use policy based routing to redirect http traffic to my proxy server, where I can find the configuration example?
View 11 Replies View RelatedI would like to ask you if it's possibile to block routing between some Vlan for just once of them.
Maybe I can explain better:
I've got a Cisco 6509 with 4 configured vlan interfaces
Int Vlan 10 10.10.1.0/24
Int Vlan 20 10.10.2.0/24
Int Vlan 30 10.10.3.0/24
Int Vlan 40 10.10.4.0/24
Vlan "10" is the phone voip Vlan and it must not talk with the others Vlan. The others Vlan can comunicate normally except with Vlan "10".
Pratically Vlan "10" needs to be isolated from the others.
This equirement comes becouse Vlan 10 is wireless and has the WEP key encryption (very weak protocol). Some Phone couldn't support the WPA2 key and I need to avoid an unauthorized external client, cracking the WEP key and connecting to this WiFi, could have free access to the others Vlan.