Setup 1810 switches - trunk

[lucver7]

Hi all

I have the following setup:

Vlans:

1: default vlan

10: admin

20: guest

 Hardware:

1 x CISCO RV180 router (DHCP server - vlan 10: 192.168.1.0/24 - vlan 20: 192.168.2.0/24)

1x HP 1810-24 (port 23/24 Trunk static (untagged in Vlan1) - port 1-12 vlan 10 (TR1 en TR2: tagged)- port 13-22  vlan 20 - (TR1 en TR2: tagged)

5x HP 1810-8 (port 7/8 Trunk static (untagged in Vlan1) - port 1-3 vlan 10 (TR1 en TR2: tagged)- port 4-6  vlan 20 - (TR1 en TR2: tagged)

Connection of the switches:

Cisco-RV180 port 1 (vlan 10) connected to 1810-24 (switch ip 192.168.1.30) port 8 (vlan 10)

Cisco-RV180 port 3 (vlan20) connected to 1810-24 (switch ip 192.168.1.30) port 22 (vlan 20)

1810-24 (switch ip 192.168.1.30) TR1 connected to 1810-8 (switch ip 192.168.1.31) and TR2 to 1810-8 (switch ip 192.168.1.32)

1810-8 (switch ip 192.168.1.31) TR1 connected to 1810-8(switch ip 192.168.1.33) and TR2 to 1810-8 (switch ip 192.168.1.34)

1810-8 (switch ip 192.168.1.32) TR1 connected tot 1810-8 (switch ip 192.168.1.35)

I've made sure that all the links between the switches are the same speed and type.

I've stacked them on top of one another on my desk, connected the switches and router and everything works fine. I tried all vlan ports on all the switches to get a correct IP form the CISCO, no problem everything is OK. The trunk prots show up as active.

When I tried this setup in the actual situation, the trunk ports remain down. I've tested the CAT6 cable running between the swiches and it is fine. When I connect say port 8 on the 1810-24 (switch ip 192.168.1.30) with port 3 on an 1810 (switch ip 192.168.1.31) in the actual situation, both ports show up as active.

I can't figure out what is wrong.

Help would be appriciated!

Luc

[parnassus]

Have you configured both (Static) LAGs before manually connecting both Switches with those Cat.6 Ethernet cable pairs?

IF so, disconnect them, then, on each Switch, configure the LAG to use LACP (Dynamic) or No Protocol (Statico) and redo the VLAN Tagging against that BAGG (BAGG port type should be set to Trunk, then you can set the BAGG port VLAN Tagged for the VLANs you need to be tagged)...once all is done connect both Switches as you did before. The BAGG (Static or Dynamic) should go up in few seconds.

Better to use LACP (Dynamic) if you are working with very similar (if not equals) Switches.

Better to start with necessary ports (LAG members ports) in their default configuration so you know yet the settings are corrects on both Switches for all involved ports.

[lucver7]

Tnx but it doesn't work.

I changed the ports to LACP active, still no go.

[parnassus]

Could you please draw and post a simple diagram of the Network Topology you're trying to configure?

An image is better than hundreds words.

Maybe I'm missing (or I misunderstood) something about what you wrote in relation of your Trunks...since you have 5 Switches I hope you haven't done any network loop (I mean: is it your Switches topology a Star, a Daisy Chain or what?).

From each Switch you should have only one Trunk (a LAG or just a single Link, doesn't matter) to any other Switch of your network...no loops, no rings (no other links or LAGs coming back directly from the same Switch or indirectly through other Switches).

[Vince-Whirlwind]

The topology is clear from the description.
You mention 5 trunks:
Sw30 TR1 & TR2
Sw31 TR1 & TR2
Sw32 TR1

This is either incomplete or completely spurious: you either have 10 trunks or none. You haven't provided the port membership information about the trunks.
The only port membership information you give is "port 23/24 Trunk static (untagged in Vlan1)" without saying what trunk this is.

When you configured these "trunks" were you attempting to perform link aggregation?

One good trick (on a tiny network) with link aggregation is to use the same TR ID on both sides of each aggregated link. For example, personally, I would configure the link between Sw31<==>Sw33 as TR3, Sw31<==>Sw34 as TR4, Sw32<==>Sw35 as TR5

When you say "the CAT6 cable running between the swiches", do you mean each inter-switch link is a single CAT6 cable?

[parnassus]

Network Topology is clear but, at first sight, its trunking isn't...IMHO a network diagram will be better than hundreds words.

[lucver7]

Attached are a drawing of the network I'm trying to create and the config of the switches.

Just to be clear:

I've tested the CAT6 kabels and they are OK. There is a single CAT 6 cable running between the switches.

When I connect a tagged port to an untagged port, the connection is active. If I do the same with the same cable between 2 tagged ports, they  stay down.

I've tested the whole setup on my desk, and everything works fine (i.e. I get an ip in the correct range from the router if I connect to any of the untagged ports).

I've tried to configure the tagged ports as static and with LACP.

Tnx for your time. I appriciate your help!

Luc

[Vince-Whirlwind]

You don't need to use Static or LACP, because you don't have any trunks.

If you get rid of all the Trunk config, you will have fewer variables and disctractions in troubleshooting what your issue is.

If it works fine on your desk, but not in production, then the problem is with whatever is different between your desk and production - the cabling?

[lucver7]

Thanks for the help. I do need trunks however, the IP's on the drawing are the IP's of the switches.

What I need is a guest and an admin network running over the switches. (192.168.1.0/24  and 192.168.2.0/24)

I will double check the cabeling though.

Luc

[Vince-Whirlwind]

If I've understood the information you've provided correctly, you raen't using trunks.

Trunks are for link aggregation, if you have single links between switches, then you don't need any trunk configuration.