- Community Home
- >
- Networking
- >
- Switching and Routing
- >
- Web and Unmanaged
- >
- Replacing Cisco switch with 1910
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
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
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
07-10-2013 06:26 AM - last edited on 07-14-2013 09:25 PM by Maiko-I
07-10-2013 06:26 AM - last edited on 07-14-2013 09:25 PM by Maiko-I
Replacing Cisco switch with 1910
I am trying to replace a Cisco room switch with an HP1910 switch, and am not having much luck.
My core switch is a Cisco 6509e, and I had a Cisco 2960 in the room before.
On the 6509e, it has a port set up as a "trunk" port, and then fiber running to the room, going in to the SFP port on the 1910 (and physically it shows as being "up").
On the 2960, I would have one of the SFP ports configured as a "trunk" port.
I would configure the switch with whatever VLan that room was supposed to be in, as well as 6 more VLans for our wireless system.
I would have all the other ports except one configured with "switchport access vlan XXX", where XXX was the VLan for that room.
We use Meraki wireless, and so the AP's also sit on a trunk port so they can use multiple VLans, but they need to have a "native" VLan so the AP itself can get an address. So, I use the "Switchport Trunk Native Vlan XXX" command on that "trunk" port to give it the same VLan as the room.
So, I understand that the term "trunk" does not mean the same on the HP as on the Cisco (it's basically etherchannel...) - This is true on the lower end 1910 series as well as the ProCurve, correct?
One of my questions is then: Do I leave all the ports in "access" mode? Does just "tagging" the ports going back to the 6509 and to the AP with all the VLans let them carry all the VLans like a Cisco trunk port?
Also, I assume that all the other access ports should be "untagged" with the room VLan - correct?
For the AP port, do I "tag" it with all the VLans, and then also set the PVID to the room VLan? Is that the same as my Cisco "trunk" port with the native vlan set?
Thanks,
Branden
P.S. This thread has been moved from Switches, Hubs, Modems (Legacy ITRC forum) to Web and Unmanaged. - Hp Forum Moderator
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
07-10-2013 04:14 PM
07-10-2013 04:14 PM
Re: Replacing Cisco switch with 1910
If your cisco switchport config was something like:
int g1/0/1
sw mo trunk
sw tr nat vlan 1
sw tr all vlan 2,3,4
Then your HP switchport config would be:
(I think 1910s are web-managed?)
select the uplink port:
vlan 1 untagged, vlan 2 tagged, vlan 3 tagged, vlan 4 tagged
If the Cisco is
int g1/0/2
sw mo access
sw acc vlan 1
then the HP would be:
select port, vlan 1 untagged
Untagged = access or native