- Community Home
- >
- Networking
- >
- Legacy
- >
- Switches, Hubs, Modems
- >
- Stacking Procurve Switches (nested)
Categories
Company
Local Language
Forums
Discussions
Forums
- Data Protection and Retention
- Entry Storage Systems
- Legacy
- Midrange and Enterprise Storage
- Storage Networking
- HPE Nimble Storage
Discussions
Discussions
Discussions
Forums
Forums
Discussions
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
- BladeSystem Infrastructure and Application Solutions
- Appliance Servers
- Alpha Servers
- BackOffice Products
- Internet Products
- HPE 9000 and HPE e3000 Servers
- Networking
- Netservers
- Secure OS Software for Linux
- Server Management (Insight Manager 7)
- Windows Server 2003
- Operating System - Tru64 Unix
- ProLiant Deployment and Provisioning
- Linux-Based Community / Regional
- Microsoft System Center Integration
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Community
Resources
Forums
Blogs
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Mark Topic as New
- Mark Topic as Read
- Float this Topic for Current User
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Printer Friendly Page
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО02-16-2005 02:26 PM
тАО02-16-2005 02:26 PM
Stacking Procurve Switches (nested)
We have five HP 4108gl switches as our set of core switches. Currently we have them in a cascaded arrangement, with a two port trunk per cascade connection, eg
SW-1 to SW-2 (2 port trunk)
SW-2 to SW-3 (2 port trunk)
SW-3 to SW-4 (2 port trunk)
SW-4 to SW-5 (2 port trunk)
This configuration has served us extremely well except on the rare occasion when one of the middle switches has failed, resulting in a split network.
Due to the length of the stacking port cables (1/2 metre) it is impossible for us to connect SW-1 to SW-5 in a cascade loop. We propose to break the trunked stacking ports and configure the switches in a staggered switch format, ie
SW-1 to SW-2 and to SW-3
SW-2 to SW-3 and to SW-4
SW-3 to SW-4 and to SW-5
SW-4 to SW-5
Is this configuration likely to cause any problems?
All suggestions/recommendations greatly appreciated.
Cheers,
Simon Whiting.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО03-17-2005 07:46 PM
тАО03-17-2005 07:46 PM
Re: Stacking Procurve Switches (nested)
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО03-22-2005 10:18 PM
тАО03-22-2005 10:18 PM
Re: Stacking Procurve Switches (nested)
No ?
Stephane
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО03-23-2005 09:23 AM
тАО03-23-2005 09:23 AM
Re: Stacking Procurve Switches (nested)
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО03-23-2005 10:18 AM
тАО03-23-2005 10:18 AM
Re: Stacking Procurve Switches (nested)
We are trying to optimise the setup by only enabling spanning tree on the ports interconnecting these three switches. The hope is to limit spanning tree packets to only interconnection ports and to enable STP fast mode on all other.
The three port types we have identified were:
1). switch interconnects for core switches with redundant paths
2). switch interconnects for leaf switches without redundant paths
3). directly connected device (eg servers)
Only port type "1" needs spanning tree as only core switches will have redundant paths. Port types "2" and "3" will be single connections and not require spanning tree.
On our three interconnnected test switches we are currently testing STP configuration settings such as "Edge", "Point-to-Point" & "Mcheck", and have disabled "cdp" and "lacp" on all ports to try and achieve the above. Unfortunately we are still seeing STP broadcast packets on end nodes/devices, however the fast mode seems to behaving as expected.
Any further suggestions?
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО04-19-2005 01:53 AM
тАО04-19-2005 01:53 AM
Re: Stacking Procurve Switches (nested)
All of the options you have used still assume that Spanning Tree / RSTP is in operation therefore you will still see BPDUs. I believe the only way you are going to stop the BPDUs on server ports is by actually disabling STP on those ports ( not even sure whether this is possible on a per port basis on this switch) - generally inadvisable anyway because it just adds risk of loops being created by accident. Fast-start does a perfectly acceptable job.
The only caveat that I have seen on this recently is PCs with bridging mode turned on. This makes the PC/Server send out legacy Spanning Tree BPDUs which can mess up the fast-start.
Cheers,
Nick
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО04-19-2005 09:53 AM
тАО04-19-2005 09:53 AM
Re: Stacking Procurve Switches (nested)
Thanks for all the replies. With have now enable RSTP. We have testing various configurations on a set of test 4108GLs by tweaking vaious RSTP port settings and found that the default RSTP settings work best with LACP disabled and CDP enabled.
Thanks again to all that replied.
Cheers,
Simon.