Virtual Connect Shared uplink config with A5800 switch

[atqquebec]

Hi,

We have 2 VC Flex-10 in a C7000.  We used to 2 regular switches in our rack, but we've upgraded them for 2 A5800 (H3C 5800) switches, that allows for distributed link aggregation.  Because of the original setup config is currently made of 2 Shared Uplink Sets, each one connected to one switch (10 gbps).  Should I convert this to one Shared Uplink Set connected to one port of each A5800?

Thanks,

Ugo

[Psychonaut]

That will only work if both ports are on the same VC.

"Aggregation groups require multiple ports from a single VC-Enet module to be connected to a single
external switch that supports automatic formation of LACP aggregation groups, or multiple external
switches that utilize distributed link aggregation."

If that is your configuration then I would make the change.

[atqquebec]

So, are the VC active-active? Are they both forwarding packets or only one unit a the time?

[Hongjun Ma]

please DO NOT convert your VC config to just one SUS. I'm assuming you want both VC modules have uplinks for H/W redundancy, if that's the case, converting it to just one SUS will have a active/standby design.

Since VC doesn't use STP to talk with upstream switch so your original design already give you active/active forwarding, getting A5820 IRF will enhance your traffic flow and hasbetter resilency for single 5820 switch failure.

please take a look at this this VC+IRF guide design section for the options.

VC and IRF: http://bizsupport1.austin.hp.com/bc/docs/support/SupportManual/c02843088/c02843088.pdf

[Psychonaut · Accepted solution]

Correct, as I mentioned above - consider this if you are running both ports out of the same VC. If that is the case and the goal is aggregation you do not want to use two SUS's, you will need one SUS with both ports to get aggregation.

[atqquebec]

Ok, since I only need redundancy and I don't need more bandwith, my config is fine. Yay.

Thanks a lot.

Ugo