HPE Community read-only access December 15, 2018
This is a maintenance upgrade. You will be able to read articles and posts, but not post or reply.
Hours:
Dec 15, 4:00 am to 10:00 am UTC
Dec 14, 10:00 pm CST to Dec 15, 4:00 am CST
Dec 14, 8:00 pm PST to Dec 15, 2:00 am PST
Switches, Hubs, and Modems
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

IRF link connection

 
SOLVED
Go to solution
TomasHamrle
Occasional Advisor

IRF link connection

Hello, 

I was just wondering, why we have to use only one type of connecting IRF links. According to config guides the valid IRF link connection are 1/1 -> 2/2 or 1/2 -> 2/1 (connect first interface on one member to the second interface on other member). Does anybody know, why connections like 1/1 -> 2/1 or 1/2 -> 2/2 are not valid? I cannot find any information about it and I'm really interested in.

Thank you

Tom

3 REPLIES
parnassus
Honored Contributor

Re: IRF link connection

I'm not sure to follow you exactly...the requirements of connecting physical interface(s) bound to logical IRF Port 1 of one IRF Member to respective physical interface(s) bound to logical IRF Port 2 of the next neighbour IRF Member (and vice-versa between IRF Port 2 to IRF Port 1)...has nothing to to with any restriction related to which physical interface(s) type (and number) you use in IRF Ports binding...execpt for the obiouvs two: (a) require you to use the same type of interfaces between two neighbour IRF Members (that's physically logical) and (b) if you aggregate two physical for IRF Port 1 then you need to do so also for IRF Port 2...and, symmetrically, the same on the other way back IRF Port 2/1 to IRF Port 1/2 (even if - I think - there is no explicit statement to do so...it's totally reasonable to do so).

So when you wrote "why we have to use only one type of connecting IRF links"...it's not a clear preamble to your subsequent requests.

TomasHamrle
Occasional Advisor

Re: IRF link connection

Hello,

according to HP ATP - FlexNetwork Solutions V3 Official Study Guide there is written:

"Port 1 on one member must always connect to port 2 on another member. Member 1 and member 2 can connect on ports 1/1 and 2/2 or on ports 1/2 and 2/1. But they can never connect on ports 1/1 and 2/1 or 1/2 and 2/2."

For example:

FortyGig 1/0/51 = Irf-link 1/1

FortyGig 1/0/52 = Irf-link 1/2

FortyGig 2/0/51 = Irf-link 2/1

FortyGig 2/0/52 = Irf-link 2/2

The interesting part for me is why two members can never be connected on ports 1/1 and 2/1 or 1/2 and 2/2?

parnassus
Honored Contributor
Solution

Re: IRF link connection

It's a matter of how IRF was implemented: you have always "to cross" IRF logic port 1 with IRF logic port 2 on any neighbouring IRF members (and any IRF Member is entitled to hjave only two IRF logic ports)...that could be seen as unnecessary (as pretty much happens on VSF implemented on ArubaOS-Switch based switches where VSF logic ports - which are the counterpart of IRF logic ports - can be interconnected irrespectively of any number they have assigned to).

Deploying a two IRF Members cluster (IRF Member 1 and IRF Member 2) and having four physical interface globally available for IRF links (two for each IRF Member involved) you're pretty much forced into what is called an IRF chain topology (IRF ring topology is admitted on two IRF Member cluster for specific switch series only): in this scenario I would bind FortyGig 1/0/51 and FortyGig 1/0/52 physical interfaces to the same IRF port 1/1 (so IRF port 1/2 exists but has no physical interfaces bound so it can't be used at all) and bind FortyGig 2/0/51 and FortyGig 2/0/52 interfaces to the same IRF port 2/2 (so IRF port 2/1 has no physical interfaces bound so it can't be used at all).