STB_6509#sho mod
Mod Ports Card Type Model Serial No.
--- ----- -------------------------------------- ------------------ -----------
1 10 WiSM WLAN Service Module WS-SVC-WISM-1-K9
2 24 CEF720 24 port 1000mb SFP WS-X6724-SFP
5 2 Supervisor Engine 720 (Active) WS-SUP720-3B
[code]....
I would like to add a redundant supervisor blade to the 6509 that is in production. Can this be done plug and play and require no reload. Are all WS-SUP720-3B the same as far as memory etc... or can I buy any used WS-SUP720-3B and it will work properly.
1) Does the 6500 series router support supervisor module redundancy like the 7304 does? IE, can I put two identical sup720 modules in the chassis for failover?
2) Can I use any ethernet interface on any line card on the 6500 series for router interfaces? If not, which line cards work as router interfaces?
3) Differences between the 6500 series and the 7600 series? Can I use a sup720 modules from a 6500 in a 7600?
I have a question with regards to 6500 Redundancy. We currently have only one in our DC, it has 2 SUP 720s, two FWSMS, and multiple switchport blades. My question is is this fully redundant? and if not what is it that can fail, so I can look into adding that extra layer of redundancy.
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 ?
We've been mocking up a test lab to test VSS on two 6500's. Each 6500 has one sup720 and a 6708-10ge blade and we've established the two 10ge links between the two chassis; the first from the each chassis' sup and the second from each 6708.My question is, what happens when the supervisor fails on one of the chassis?
1. We now have SupA & SupB in the chassis, due to some mistake we have same IOS version but different feature set on them, although we configured redundancy mode sso, in the "show redundancy" we see Operating Redundancy Mode = rpr due to Software mismat, we now need to fix them as same feature set image, if I use "copy sup-bootdisk0:/xxxx slavesup-bootdisk0:/xxx", then write memory, does this cause any service/network interuption?
Available system uptime = 1 year, 1 week, 4 days, 9 hours, 21 minutes Switchovers system experienced = 2 Standby failures = 0 Last switchover reason = active unit removed
[code]....
2. We did a failover test with this status, found that if we triggered supervisor failover, all modules will reload thus the services if interupped. How about after we make the Operating Redundancy Mode as sso, will this behaviour shows again? Or a stateful failover will happens, then modules no need reload?
3. We are using OSPF as our L3 routing protocol, after reference to the configuration, nsf should be enabled, we want to ask in the OSPF-domain nsf should be configured in all OSPF-enabled router or only 6500 which have dual-sup?
4. We also found that the interfaces(3 * Gig & 2 * TenG) in Standby supervisor cannot be use even enabled & configured, is it because we are running rpr mode now or will be the same even change to sso? Before customer have some older supervisor in 6500 non-e chassis, and they can use the standby supervisor interfaces as traffic forwarding, they use rpr-plus mode before, how about in sso mode?
Four 6500 connected to each other to form a full mesh. Switches 4 and 7 is running eigrp. A question came up, why didnt it have eigrp on SW 2 & 3 ? Will it still be redundant if link between SW3 and SW4 is removed? If redundancy is working, SW3 should be able to find its way to SW4 via SW7 or SW2, yes?
Recently, the eigrp was configured to SW 2 and SW 3 as well, it included the “redistribute static” statement. The route for SW2 and SW3 now has the VLANs, 51 or so. Sent ping from a PC to VLAN1 IP of SW3, then link between SW3 and SW4 was disconnected, network connectivity went down for about 20secs, and ping came right back. Thought it was a success. All of a sudden, outside connectivity was lost. Ping within the LAN was successful, but no internet connection.
The eigrp on SW2 and SW3 was removed, and the internet connection came back up. The initial concern was that although there is physical redundancy in place, the other routes may not be known. Hence, eigrp configuration has been attempted for SW2 and SW3. Perhaps the “redistribute static” should have never been configured on SW2 and SW3, SW7 does not have the “redistribute static” statement anyway.
Without eigrp running on SW2 and SW3, does it still have redundancy? For what it’s worth, SW4 and SW7 are both VTP servers. With the current configs, does it still have redundancy? Link redundancy was never tested; it always has been assumed that it works. Later today, with it’s current config, the link redundancy will be tested.
Since the ACE supports only static routing, when pointing a default route from the ACE what is your preferred method when using multiple 6500s with an ACE in each in a failover scenario to prevent just pointing at one 6500? Static route to an HSRP address? Multiple static routes on the ACE, etc?
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 a question. I have a 6500 with two supervosrs and they both have CATOS. One of them failed and I need to replace. As long as the hardware is the same does the CATOS have to be indentical or can this be different.
I'm trying to configure a egress netflow in a 6500 (VSS) with VS-S720-10G supervisor. I foud some old posts and understood that netflow wasn't supported on 6500 but i found a new document and it seems that netflow is supported in Supervisor Engine 2T:[URL] Does the netflow still not supported in VS-S720-10G? It's weird because the command is supported:
#sh run int vlan 4 Building configuration... Current configuration : 353 bytes ! interface Vlan4 ip address X.X.X.X 255.255.0.0
We bought Cisco sup engine WS-SUP32-GE-3B for 6500 switches 2 nos for redundancy. I have connected 6 systems on each sup engine ports. How to clarify whether both sup engine will forward the data while one is Master and other is standby?
What consequences could i have if i install a WiSM-2 module into a pair of 6500 configured in VSS and another WiSM-2 module into other pair of 6500 configured in VSS for serving a 300 APs??...in this case, do i need to configure mobility groups for guarantee a high availability and also redundancy of controllers?Under the best practices, is much better having the two WiSM-2 modules into a single pair of 6500 configured in VSS??
I have a 6500 chassis with 2 power supplies. At the moment I am using the default configuration:
power-redudancy mode redundant
The problem is that an inserted module is in "power deny" state due too insufficient power.
I know, that It's not a good idea to change into combined mode (loss of redundancy), but my customers requested this anyway.
So I will change to combined mode. So here's the 1 million dollar question: "Which modules will go into power deny, if one of my power supplies fails?"
The 6500 config guide states:
"Power supply is removed withredundancy disabled • System log and syslog messages are generated. • System power is decreased to the power capability of one supply. • If there is not enough power for all previously powered-up modules, some modulesare powered down and marked as power-deny in the show power oper state field."
Well, do you know if there's any way to configure some kind of priority? E.g. I definetly don't want by 10Gig Module or WiSM module to be in power deny. Can i statically make sure, those module will be powered on for sure? Like: "power enable module slot_number" How is this calculated? Or is random?
I have a customer who is looking to add some redundancy to their internet connections. Currently we have an ASA 5510 for their firewall. I know that the Sonicwalls are capable of terminating multiple internet connections simultaneously for load balancing, redundancy, and for pushing different types of traffic out different connections. Traditionally the ASAs have not had that capability. But does anyone know if the newer revs (8.3 and I think 8.4 may be out?) will do that or anything similar? Not looking for a full BGP-style solution where the same address space is available via multiple links, but more just a solution where the internet for basic web browsing could fail over and load balance between two internet connections, each assigned to a different outside interface on the ASA.
I'm shortly going to move our stuff to a new data centre, where we have two network feeds - so there'll be two lengths of CAT 5 coming into the rack, for "first hop redundancy".I have something similar at our existing DC, but I'm simplifying the equation somewhat at the new DC, and using a simpler configuration that just uses two switches, rather than two switches and two routers. All of the servers will have public IP addresses.Now - the network guy at the new DC has confirmed that a simpler two switch configuration will work.
We have cisco 1841 router with two ISP . But we facing the problem whenever our secondary ISP Link goes down the Primary has also went down.We have only one default route for primary Link
So the 2T comes with 2 10GE and 3 GE uplink ports. Can you use all 5, one or the other, a mix, or what? How does that work? It's not really clear from reviewing the products webpage or data sheet.
A small compatibility question regarding 6500 series:
The document: [URL]
, but Dynamic Configuration Tool sais that:
"Two or more selected items are incompatible. Selected or default-included item [WS-SVC-FWM-1-K9] is incompatible with: [VS-S2T-10G]. Please change one or more items."
I am looking at getting a Cisco 4003 and get a Supervisor that can support IOS. Something like this url...I can't figure out if the the 4003 can take an IOS supported Supervisor engine. The Cisco documentation is lacking since it is EOL.
we got 2 Cisco 4005 Switches with IOS 12.x. t.Now we have two new Cisco 4500 Switches with Supervisor 6E-L.But i dont really understand the new syntax / configuration method of ios 15.
I have a 4510R+E switch that won't change to the SSO redundancy mode. After entering the 'mode SSO' command, the switch reboots the peer supervisor (as it says it will), but after it comes back up it remains in RPR mode. I've tried rebooting the peer supervisor manually, rebooting the entire chassis, manually power cycling the entire chassis, and reseating the sups, but the switch remains in RPR mode. The issue started when I swapped the switch's supervisor with the supervisor of another 4500. The same issue was observed on the other 4500 as well, but after several reboots, I got it to change to SSO mode. Prior to the swap, both switches were running in SSO mode just fine.Since we're running IOS version 15.0 with the 'spare sup' license, I suspect the issue arose because of licensing complications (with relation to the chassis serial number and the like) when I swapped the sups....although this doesn't explain why the other switch changed to SSO after some troubleshooting.
I have problems with the RV042 router. Currently I have two Internet service is the first DSL service and the other is through cable. The problem is because the router is not doing the redundancy process. For example if DSL service fails, the cable internet service does not come automatically. You have to disconnect and connect manually to maintain the connection to the Internet. Should not the router do this automatically without intervention?
Can the above be used to provide redundancy. However there is only one ISP side connected? Of course we can set up both with exact same rules and use a Manual power on/off if?
First and foremost, what I have are 2 x 7204VXR (Gateways), 1 x 4507R-E (Coreswitch), and our ISP have 7609.Got some issues with redundancy with our ISP.
7609 I I I I 7204-A 7204-B | | | vrrp | | | -4507R-E- | | internal network
Both outside interfaces of 7204 gateways are connecting to 7609 with different public ip block. I used VRRP for my internal nework and failover have been tested working.
Even tried to remove link of 7204-A and 7609, the failover works perfect. If I shutdown/ remove the link between my 4507R-E and 7204-A (primary gw_higher vrrp priority), vrrp redundancy/failover still works, but pings from internal network to internet is only 50% success....alternate 4 ping reply and 4 time out.
i have a 6509 connected via layer 2 (VLAN1) to a 3750 (e.g. VLAN1 10.1.1.1)then to the HQ via Metroethernet(L3). Is it possible to connect the 6509 to an ASA that already has VPN connectivity to the HQ using HSRP? Also need to mention, the VPN connection is supposed to be the redundant connection if Metroethernet link fails.
