Configured Layer 3 portchannel from 6500VSS enabled switch to two different 6500 standalone switch. Configured first ip on VSS switch, second ip on standalone switch1 and third IP on standalone switch2. My question is
1. Will the portchannel be up?
2. If port channel is up, will I able to ping the connected IP's.
I have a switch layer 6500 series connected to a firewall, the port configuration between them is layer 2, in another words I do not configure an IP address in the Cisco switch port to conected it in the firewall, but when a apply a policy on firewall it lose communication with others vlans, just the vlan that is connected between the switch and firewall works, attachment the design. I think that is necessary to configure the connection between the firewall and switch as layer 3 ( a port with IP address in the switch), but I would like to know why? The switch is configured with about 10 vlan and it is a inter vlan routing, a default route is configured in the switch where the gateway is the firewall.
View 5 Replies View RelatedI configured the interfaces individually at L3 and could ping across each link Example:
4500 Switch 2: 6500 Switch 1
int t5/1 - int g3/17 1 Gig fiber link
tore down config
tried second set of interface
int t6/1 - int g8/17 1 Gig fiber link
Ping successful
[code]....
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.
Has anyone configured Layer 3 port channel on Cisco 6509 switches which are connected over dark fiber between two buildings?
View 3 Replies View RelatedI have a pair of 6500's setup with VSS and there is currently only one link between then. However one end of the link is on Po10 and the other end is on Po25. If I move the Po25 over to Po10, will things break? It seems to be working fine now. I'm about to add a second link and I'm concerned about the current configuration. It makes more sense to me to have both ends of the same link on the same port-channel ID. I've seen documentation which states otherwise however.
interface Port-channel10
no switchport
no ip address
[Code]....
I have a Cisco 6500 series switch with VS-C6509E-S720-10G ,I have two redundant supervisors between two chassis on the LAN with no add-on line cards ?
I need to know if I can use the redundant supervisor 10 Gb uplinks to form a layer-2 Port channel between the two 6500 switches as i do not want to use want to keep the port idle additionally I need more bandwidth between the two switches for my server farm?
I have 2 cisco 6500 in a VSS configuration , All of my Lan access switches are Stack switches and every Stack is connected to the VSS in a Port-channel so basically this is a loop free environment with no blocked ports .As a best practice I left STP in the Background (mstp)which enhanced cisco features to STP should I configure on the Aggregator (6500-VSS) and on the Access switches ?
Because of my topology I dont see the need in configuring most features like Uplink Fast and Backbone Fast but I have configured Loop Guard in addition to UDLD on the 6500 Aggregation Switches (on the port-channels).On the access ports I have configured portfast , bpduguard and guard root (seems a little pointless to configure the two...)
1.should I Leave UDLD on and get rid of LoopGuard and configure Guard root instead ? since LoopGuard cannot be configured with Guard Root.
2.should I configure GuardRoot on access ports if I already have BpduGuard on them ?
3.Is there anything I need to configure on the physicall interface or is everything configured on the port-channel since STP reguards port- channel as a single interface ?
I need adding a vlan to the trunks bundled in port channel. I know how to add v lans to a port channel with Cisco IOS but with CAT OS.
I have 2 ports bundled to form ether channel in switch which is running CAT OS. There are already few v lans allowed in the trunk of each interface. now I need to add one more v lan.
For Example:-
v lan 135 needs to be added in addition to the existing v lans.
clear trunk1/2 1-112,115,117-134,136-4094
set trunk 1/2 on dot1q 113-114,116,135
and similarly on the 2nd interface
so if I add vlan135 to the trunk one after another will it cause any service disruption?
I has a issue about etherchannel beetwen 02 Catalyst 6500 switch, i need your comment about it. if you had any similar experience:
1.- On Catalyst Switch 6500-1: I configured interface port-channel 4 and associated it to G6/29 and G6/30 interface Port-channel4description IUU1_Gn1_HLIMSGSN01_Port_channel_6_29_6_30switchportswitchport trunk encapsulation dot1qswitchport trunk allowed vlan 406,408switchport mode trunkswitchport nonegotiatelogging event link-statusload-interval 30mls qos vlan-basedmls qos trust dscp!
2.- On Catalyst Switch 6500-2: I configured interface port-channel 4 and associated it to G6/29 and G6/30
interface Port-channel4
description IUU2_Gn2_HLIMSGSN01_Port_channel_6_29_6_30
switchport
switchport trunk encapsulation dot1q
switchport trunk allowed vlan 407,409
[code]....
and i see output "show interface Po4A" up up on switch-1, "show interface Po4B" up up on switch-2
5.- In the show running-config not appear configured Po4A and Po4B. it only show on outputs
6.- Po4A and Po4 was not configured on neither switches, my question is why appear Po4A and Po4B on switch-1 and switch-2 respectively? and why Po4 appear in down down.
7.- I solved this issue by shutdown and not shutdown to the interfaces on both routers, currently all is OK.
we have cisco 6500 series switch and configured port channel on both switches with 2 gig interfaces on both switches.
When we enable the port channel mode to as desirable to the interfaces on both side and applied the port channel to physical interfaces switch will go down and if we remove on any one side switch will come up. we have enabled globally the following commands. [code]
I am trying to configure port-channel from one switch to two switchs, and only one interface of each switches make part of the port channel.Cisco IOS Software, ME380x Software (ME380x-UNIVERSALK9-M), Version 12.2(52)EY4, RELEASE SOFTWARE (fc1) [code]
View 5 Replies View RelatedI would like to know how many port channel can i configured in the switch 3750 X ? and if there is a limitation by IOS ?
View 4 Replies View RelatedOn the supervisor card of a cisco 6500 series, according to the following link, [URL] it only has 2 uplink ports on the card. Would I be correct in assuming that I only have those to ports that I can configure IP addresses on?
The cisco that is being devlivere is coming with a 48 port switch and 24 port fibre switch. Could I change any of those ports into a router port and configure IP addresses on those?
The supervisor card is a ws-sup-720-3b the 48 port switch is a ws-x6748-ge-tx the 24 port fibre switch is ws-x6724-sfp
Can i configure access ports into port channel on Nexus 7K switch.If possible then provide the complete configuration.....
View 2 Replies View Relatedshow logging
May 1 16:00:30: %LINEPROTO-5-UPDOWN: Line protocol on Interface GigabitEthernet0/12, changed state to down
May 1 16:00:39: %LINEPROTO-5-UPDOWN: Line protocol on Interface GigabitEthernet0/12, changed state to up
May 1 16:17:28: %LINEPROTO-5-UPDOWN: Line protocol on Interface GigabitEthernet0/12, changed state to down
May 1 16:17:36: %LINEPROTO-5-UPDOWN: Line protocol on Interface GigabitEthernet0/12, changed state to up
May 1 16:25:28: %LINEPROTO-5-UPDOWN: Line protocol on Interface GigabitEthernet0/11, changed state to down
May 1 16:25:37: %LINEPROTO-5-UPDOWN: Line protocol on Interface GigabitEthernet0/11, changed state to up
May 1 17:19:25: %LINEPROTO-5-UPDOWN: Line protocol on Interface GigabitEthernet0/11, changed state to down
Configuration as below:
macro name vmware
switchport trunk encapsulation dot1q
switchport mode trunk
no switchport access vlan
[code].....
Note:Both active blade switch and standby one are connecting to same aggregate switch 3750. Yet the active one, with same config as standby one, has not occurred this issue.
We were going to create a 2 port, layer 3 etherchannel between a 1002 router and a 3750X layer 3 core switch. We wanted to create bunled link between them but, now we are going to be putting a Riverbed device between the router and core switch. Because of this, would it be best to abandon the idea of creating a layer 3 etherchannel and just have 2 links from the router and core switch and have traffic load balance between the 2 links?The Riverbed will have 2 connections into it from the Core switch and 2 connections into it from the 1002 router. I was hoping to keep the layer 3 etherchannel but, do you think it would be best to create 2, /29 nets and have the router/Riverbed and Core Switch/Riverbed load balance.
View 5 Replies View Related"How to display the EOBC error counters in the Catalyst 6500 series switches and a definition of the EOBC interface" document here on support forum stays that The Ethernet Out of Band Channel (EOBC) is a half duplex channel that services many functions, which include the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP) and the packets that are destined for the switch.
Previously i were thinking that EoBC used only for SCP and SLP protocol. In addition i found other article (but not on cisco site, heh) where stays that The Results bus is a control plane, while the C (EoBC) bus is more of an "admin plane", thus you will never see data packets (such as CDP, SNMP, etc.) going over the R or C bus.
So there is a big contradiction between those two statements. How to prove one of those and if first one right, what meaned under the packets that are destined for the switch in it? SCP and SLP or other traffic as well?
I have a Cisco WS-C2960S-48TD-L with 12.2(55)SE2.This is a standalone switch, not in stack, and with no order it reboots itself looking for a new master election. On logging i have nothing, but connected with console cable i see the following after 2 minutes of not showing anything:
Waiting for Stack Master Election...
...
The switch reboots and:
...
*Mar 1 00:00:12.289: Read env variable - LICENSE_BOOT_LEVEL =
[URL]
After searching online i have no seeing nothing about disable the feature of the stack so i configure the priority for the "switch 1" to 15 and configure it the switches 2, 3 and 4 to no provision, although this switches don´t exist:
SW_ACCESS(config)#switch 1 priority 15
Changing the Switch Priority of Switch Number 1 to 15
Do you want to continue?[confirm]
New Priority has been set successfully
[URL]
With this new configuration the switch has rebooted again.Why on a standalone switch the stack is rebooting my system?Is it any feature to disable the stack?
The field engineer has a stand alone 24 port 2900 series switch that he has different equipment connected to and are segmented using VLANs. So for example, he's got ports 1-4 assigned to VLAN 10, 5-12 assigned to VLAN 20, 13-19 assigned to VLAN 30 and 20-24 assigned to VLAN 40. He would like all the gear on VLAN 30 to have the ablity to talk to all of the other VLANS, but VLAN 40 should not be allowed to talk with any other VLAN. Trunking would do no good here since the switch isn't connected to anything and you can only assign one VLAN per port.
Is there a way to do this within the stand alone switch? The only possible way I could think of would be to ensure that each VLAN has an assigned IP number (subnet) and doing this through access lists.
We have one cisco core switch 6500 series which was configured portchannel on several gig interfaces. This port is used as a trunk to enable communication between VLANs. The VLANs is where several high-end servers/hosts reside.After we disable / unbind the portchannel, the port turns amber. The following is what we did on the interface
1-no switchport command
2- make the port as access mode #switchport mode access
3- shut and no shut
4- clear arp
5- clear mac
what else can we do on that particular interface. It is just on that particular interface, the rest are ok.
I got one SF 300-48 layer 3 switch I tried to configure to use it in the office network.Unfortunately I'm unable to configure the VLAN settings.I need port one for input(VLAN2),port 7-15 for another vlan(vlan3) also need to connect with the vlan 4.port 15 is another vlan(vlan4) this is for wireless.Other ports are static.It doesn't get any connections with other vlans.I wish to know how to configure vlans in GUI mode.I tried , But I can't get the Vlan setting correctly.Also,I need to know how to communicate both vlans in GUI mode.
View 8 Replies View RelatedI created a lab and I have a few issues. One with a layer 3 switch and another with a ASA 5550.
1. Layer 3 switch: I have created multiple Vlans and I am able to route between them. I can ping the switch IP but not the default gateway to the ASA. I did a tracert of the default gateway of the ASA and once I am past the Vlan gateway it fails.
2. On the ASA 5550 I created the Vlans on sub-interfaces but still cannot get to the internet. ASA config is below the switch config.
Have 2 N2K with dual-connections to both 2 N5K, will all 4-ports of N5K will be the same port-channel. N2K as well ?
View 1 Replies View RelatedI need to configure a port channel between two sw 4507R. with port Giga, but those port are in different modules.
Sw-1
interface GigabitEthernet5/48
description **** Conexion Switch-2*****
[Code].....
I have a 3550 l3 switch configured as follows:
vlan 10 ports 1-10
vlan 21 ports 11-20
vlan 30 port 21-30
vlan 40 ports 31-40
default vlan should be vlan 21
I have the servers, switch and router connected to vlan 21. Vlan 21 works great I can browse the internet, but I cannot ping any other vlans. router is connected to fa0/19
[code]
Building configuration...
Current configuration : 4833 bytes
!
version 12.2
no service pad
[code]....
I can understand it 's one of those very basic questions , but how do I identify a Switch is Layer 2 or Layer 3 ?Looking through # show version command and checking the IOS version to be IP BASE or LAN BASE . Is it the right way ?Cisco 2960 is a Layer 2 or a Layer 3 Switch ? I noticed that access-lists could be configured which means that it 's a Layer 3 Switch , right?
[code]....
I've created a scenario using a 3750 cisco as core switch ad other 6 switch model 2900 in access level.my problem is this, the router is not a cisco router, and this router is not able to make NAT on more than one subnet.Into the core switch I've created 4 VLAN and I must to give internet access to 3 of them, 192.168.0.0/24 (vlan1), 172.16.0.0/24 (vlan2), 172.17.0.0/24 (vlan3).I've connected the switch to router via gigabit ethernet 0/1 and I've assigned to this interface ip address 192.168.10.2, the router ip address is 192.168.10.1, Switch ip default-gateway is router ip address 192.168.10.1, ip default route is 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 192.168.10.1 I've enabled ip routing feature and I've set no switchport feature to interface gigabit ethernet 0/1.From core switch I can ping router ip address but I can't make it from all other user, and the users not able to have internet access.
Below the switch configuration (only necessary strings)
version 12.1
no service pad
service timestamps debug uptime
service timestamps log uptime
no service password-encryption
[code].....
My understanding is that even layer 2 switches like the Cisco 3500XL can have 1 IP address for management. However, I cannot seem to figure out how to configure it to get it working in a router on a stick setup. I can manage the router through SSH, but I cannot SSH to the switch.
View 3 Replies View RelatedI have made a topology by using one 3560 switch and 2 2950 switches. I have also made 2 vlans name Clients and other Servers and vlan 1 is for anagement purposes. The left 2950 switch is for clients and the right is for servers. Clients is vlan 2 and servers is vlan3 . Now what i want is that my dhcp is should assign ips to clients in vlans 2 provided that servers are in vlan 3. I am also using a border router and i have introduced a default route on the 3560 to the border router.
Now when i assign static ips to my clients pc and server dhcp then i can ping between vlans but when i try to assign ip through dhcp then it wont work. Also the default route on the switch to the border router doesnt seem to work. I can ping only the border router when i put a default route on the border router instead of the 3560 switch.
is it possible to run a Catalyst 4500 as pure Layer 2 Switch, i.e. disabling "ip routing", but still managing the switch via Fa1, i.e. the defautl mgmtVrf vrf ?I tried the following:
!
no ip routing
!
interface FastEthernet1
ip vrf forwarding mgmtVrf
ip address 192.168.1.1 255.255.255.0
!
ip route vrf mgmtVrf 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 192.168.1.254
ip default-gateway 192.168.1.254
I was not able to reach the Switch even from the same subnet. Only after enabling ip routing I could manage the Switch. I haven't found any command to set ip default-gateway for a vrf. Any workaround to keep routing disabled, but still manageable via VRF?
I have 3750 core/distribution switches with routing enabled in two offices connected with copper link and L3 port channel interfaces. NewOffice#2 has moved about 5 miles farther away from office#1 and I have to deploy new core/distribution switch connect it to old core#2 via F.O and move all access switches with it. Old core will stay in old #2 offices as a bridge between office#1 and new office#2 Office#1core<->copper (Ethernet) <->oldoffice#2core<->f.o. <->new office#2core How I should configure port channels ports on oldoffice#2 core to act as bridge between office#1 core/dist and newoffice#2 core/dist without changing anything else (ip, etc) on whole network
View 1 Replies View RelatedI have 2 Cisco 6509 switches linked together via single Fibre as a trunk.I want to change this to a port channel where I will add another 3 fibre ports to the port channel but what order do I do this to minimise any disruption.
1-Configure PortChannel and add the 3 new ports, this will bring up the Port Channel but what effect will this have on traffic currently going over the single Trunk link? Will spanning tree go mad, how will switches react?
2-Convert existing Trunk link to Portchannel then add in new ports to PortChannel, I guess in doing this there will be a small hit on traffic as it changes to a port channel.