<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>topic Re: Redundancy using 4108gl core in Switches, Hubs, and Modems</title>
    <link>https://community.hpe.com/t5/switches-hubs-and-modems/redundancy-using-4108gl-core/m-p/3986902#M11119</link>
    <description>I would definately agree! &lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;If you have the budget, it would make sense even just to get one 5400/5300 as a starting point, with a view to getting a second one when ever you can.&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;The 4108 isn't a brilliant switch in my opinion and if there is any chance of replacing it then i would go for it!&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;Cheers&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;Jonboy</description>
    <pubDate>Tue, 24 Apr 2007 02:59:33 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>Jonathan Axford</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2007-04-24T02:59:33Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>Redundancy using 4108gl core</title>
      <link>https://community.hpe.com/t5/switches-hubs-and-modems/redundancy-using-4108gl-core/m-p/3986900#M11117</link>
      <description>&lt;!--!*#--&gt;Hi,&lt;BR /&gt;We have a single 4108gl chassis (CORE1) with GB modules.  The ports are either connected to servers or 2626 edge switches.&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;All desktops are connected to the edge switches.&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;We would like to create extra redundancy by adding another 4108gl chassis (CORE2).&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;Each edge switch would have a copper connection to CORE1 and a second copper connection to CORE2.&lt;BR /&gt;Each server would have NIC1 connected to CORE1 and NIC2 connected to CORE2.&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;By doing so, if one of the cores fails (or needs to be powered down), the other core will take over connecting the servers and edge switches.&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;My questions are:&lt;BR /&gt;Would simple spanning tree work in this scenario?&lt;BR /&gt;Would I need a trunk link between the cores?&lt;BR /&gt;Is there a better (more elegant!) way of achieving Core redundancy?&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;I realise that one of the cores will effectively be sitting idle, but that is not a problem - we have the budget available!&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;Thanks in advance&lt;BR /&gt;Pete&lt;BR /&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 23 Apr 2007 10:01:12 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.hpe.com/t5/switches-hubs-and-modems/redundancy-using-4108gl-core/m-p/3986900#M11117</guid>
      <dc:creator>Pete UK</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2007-04-23T10:01:12Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Redundancy using 4108gl core</title>
      <link>https://community.hpe.com/t5/switches-hubs-and-modems/redundancy-using-4108gl-core/m-p/3986901#M11118</link>
      <description>Hi&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;In regards your questions: &lt;BR /&gt;- Would simple spanning tree work in this scenario?&lt;BR /&gt;Yes. (unfortunately the 4100 doesn;t support MSTP but you can use the RSTP).&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;- Would I need a trunk link between the cores?&lt;BR /&gt;You should plan for the RSTP very well, so one 4100 playing as a Root, and the other as a Backup, and say 2Gig uplinks between them for better performance if you have some servers or ... connected to both cores.&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;-Is there a better (more elegant!) way of achieving Core redundancy?&lt;BR /&gt;Yes&lt;BR /&gt;by replacing the 4100 with 5400, so you can have L3 redudancy as well as better L2 redudancy.&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;Explanation:&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;Now with this scenario you can have L2 redudancy based on the old RSTP protocol.&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;With the 5400, you can improve this L2 redudancy with MSTP which will load balance between Vlans, so you don;t have a blocked port (and you've paid for the cable already but with RSTP its just blocked and doing nothing).&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;Also&lt;BR /&gt;You can get L3 redudancy - VRRP and that need a license.&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;If your budget can;t afford 2 of 5400, you can have 2 of the 5300 which support L3 redundancy - XRRP and also MSTP.&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;Good Luck !!!&lt;BR /&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 24 Apr 2007 02:30:34 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.hpe.com/t5/switches-hubs-and-modems/redundancy-using-4108gl-core/m-p/3986901#M11118</guid>
      <dc:creator>Mohieddin Kharnoub</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2007-04-24T02:30:34Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Redundancy using 4108gl core</title>
      <link>https://community.hpe.com/t5/switches-hubs-and-modems/redundancy-using-4108gl-core/m-p/3986902#M11119</link>
      <description>I would definately agree! &lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;If you have the budget, it would make sense even just to get one 5400/5300 as a starting point, with a view to getting a second one when ever you can.&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;The 4108 isn't a brilliant switch in my opinion and if there is any chance of replacing it then i would go for it!&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;Cheers&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;Jonboy</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 24 Apr 2007 02:59:33 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.hpe.com/t5/switches-hubs-and-modems/redundancy-using-4108gl-core/m-p/3986902#M11119</guid>
      <dc:creator>Jonathan Axford</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2007-04-24T02:59:33Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Redundancy using 4108gl core</title>
      <link>https://community.hpe.com/t5/switches-hubs-and-modems/redundancy-using-4108gl-core/m-p/3986903#M11120</link>
      <description>Thanks for your help.&lt;BR /&gt;I'll have a look at the better switches, and see if I can improve the design.&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;Cheers</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 25 Apr 2007 04:05:14 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.hpe.com/t5/switches-hubs-and-modems/redundancy-using-4108gl-core/m-p/3986903#M11120</guid>
      <dc:creator>Pete UK</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2007-04-25T04:05:14Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

