RE: 10GE access switch router

["Temkin, David" <temkin () sig com>]

Bill,


        With the right amount of prep work and understanding of how the
stacking works, you can control everything you complained about.

I complained about the same stuff until I read the document that
explains how to:

1) Renumber a switch in the cluster (and all of it's interfaces with it)

2) Hot swap a new switch into the cluster
3) - and this one's sweet - upgrade the s/w on the entire cluster in one
shot, even if they're different models
4) Control which switch is the master so that adding a new switch to the
stack doesn't chance screwing up your configs. 
5) Permanently remove all stacking config from the switch

The actual backplane has lived up performance wise in the testing I've
done, but I haven't come anywhere near testing it to 32gbps.


Just the same as thousands of people have wiped out every VLAN on their
network by putting in a switch with a higher VTP revision number with no
VLANs defined, it takes a learning curve to work well with these
suckers.

Granted - the software has been somewhat buggy - but those aren't the
merits I'm debating.

http://www.cisco.com/en/US/customer/products/hw/switches/ps5023/products
_configuration_guide_chapter09186a00801a6558.html



> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-nanog () merit edu [mailto:owner-nanog () merit edu] On 
> Behalf Of Bill Woodcock
> Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2004 11:33 AM
> To: Deepak Jain
> Cc: Frederic NGUYEN; nanog () merit edu
> Subject: Re: 10GE access switch router
>
>
>       On Tue, 28 Sep 2004, Deepak Jain wrote:
>     > Just a note, if you want redundant 10GE uplinks you 
> need to get two of
>     > these and stack them. The stacking interface does not 
> reduce the amount
>     > of switching bandwidth to the front ports IIRC.
>
> ...and the stacking interface is actually pretty lousy, from 
> our testing.
> We were anticipating really liking it, but we haven't touched 
> it again, since our lab work.  Obviously it precludes 
> hot-swappability, but beyond that, using it wipes any 
> preexisting configuration on all but the first box (and out 
> of two, I don't know how to predict which it will decide is 
> first, in advance), and it leaves the port-numbering screwed 
> up on any boxes that have used it, in perpetuity.
>
>                                 -Bill


IMPORTANT: The information contained in this email and/or its attachments is confidential. If you are not the intended 
recipient, please notify the sender immediately by reply and immediately delete this message and all its attachments.  
Any review, use, reproduction, disclosure or dissemination of this message or any attachment by an unintended recipient 
is strictly prohibited.  Neither this message nor any attachment is intended as or should be construed as an offer, 
solicitation or recommendation to buy or sell any security or other financial instrument.  Neither the sender, his or 
her employer nor any of their respective affiliates makes any warranties as to the completeness or accuracy of any of 
the information contained herein or that this message or any of its attachments is free of viruses.