Aruba & ProVision-based

changing the stacking topology - will it affect the current port config?

 
sd219
Advisor

changing the stacking topology - will it affect the current port config?

Hey!

We have two stacks in our wiring closet with following stacking configurations

 

Stack 1

Mbr
ID Mac Address Model Pri Status
--- ------------- -------------------------------------- --- ---------------
1 xyzyxz HP J9729A 2920-48G-POE+ Switch 255 Commander
2 xyzyxz HP J9729A 2920-48G-POE+ Switch 192 Standby
3 xyzyxz HP J9729A 2920-48G-POE+ Switch 128 Member

 

Stack 2


Mbr
ID Mac Address Model Pri Status
--- ------------- -------------------------------------- --- ---------------
1 xyzyxz HP J9729A 2920-48G-POE+ Switch 255 Member
2 xyzyxz HP J9729A 2920-48G-POE+ Switch 192 Member
3 xyzyxz HP J9729A 2920-48G-POE+ Switch 128 Standby
4 xyzyxz HP J9729A 2920-48G-POE+ Switch 64 Commander 

 

 

So in my opinion the second stacking configuration is total garbage, i guess the correct priority order due to the commander standby member priority should be something like the followig, am i right? :

1 xyzyxz HP J9729A 2920-48G-POE+ Switch 255 Commander 
2 xyzyxz HP J9729A 2920-48G-POE+ Switch 192 Standby
3 xyzyxz HP J9729A 2920-48G-POE+ Switch 128 Member
4 xyzyxz HP J9729A 2920-48G-POE+ Switch 64 Member

 

So my two final question:

1. Is my theory correct?

2. If i change the stacking priority order to the just mentionend one above - will it affect the current port configuration on one or maybe on all of the swithches`? So concerning untagged and tagged vlans of the ports etc.

1 REPLY 1
parnassus
Honored Contributor

Re: changing the stacking topology - will it affect the current port config?

Hi!

  1. Your theory is correct (Commander should be configured with the highest priority - range 1-255 thus 255 - and all other remaining member roles - Standby, Member - should use a lower priority value as per your "should-be" example for your Stack 2).
  2. Never tried in a similar scenario...BUT...if your actual priorities are permitting actual roles in that order...then fixing those roles' priorities with the correct/expected priority values should not change the "as-is" members numbering in any case and, consequently, the related member's ports numbering.

You heve to consider that priority setting comes into play when a stack election occurs, as happens - as example - if both the Commander and the Standby members (or an entire Stack) has rebooted at the same time. So Priority is one thing and Members numbering is another thing. Priority comes into play in the Commander election process but Members numbering is something written "on the stone" for a Stack.


I'm not an HPE Employee
Kudos and Accepted Solution banner