Change member ID in stack

[Viking698]

Ok I need to change the member ID of 2920 in a stack. The stack has 4x2920 set as a chain. What I have is this for the members

siwtch postion in stack 1 = 2 member id (Commander)

                                       2 = 1 member id (Standby)

                                       3 = 3

                                       4 = 4

I just need to change the member ID's of 1 and 2 so they match the postion in the stack. 

The first switch is the Commander and the second switch is the standy. Is there a way to just change the member ID's of the switchs? Or does the stack have to be rebuilt.

Forgive me I have read how to renumber the switchs but I have not had any luck with those instructions(problem being is one member is the comnnader and the other is the standby).

Thanks for your help.

[parnassus]

Did you try to follow the renumbering stacked member(s) paragraph to let the Stacking IDs to match their stacking positions as explained on the HP 2920 Switch series Stacking Technical Whitpaper (Page 14)?

Edit: I must admit that it's not clear if renumbering can be done against a member that has the Commander role...if so (if it can't be done) the only way is to manually force a stack redundancy switchover (of actual Commander member) to the actual Standby member...another way could be to change member(s) priority accordingly (giving the higher priority for the new Commander role to a non-Standby and non-Commander remaining member) and then reboot the stack, after that proceed with member renumbering.

[Viking698]

I have tried that what was listed in the whitepaper but had no luck. I have all ready used the redundancy swithcover to make the first switch the commander. Problem is it does not change the member ID number.

Was thinking of changing the member(s) priority but that will not change the member ID. I think since one is the commander and the other the standby you cannot do it.

May just have to set everything to factory defaults and recreate the stack.

[parnassus]

Are you saying that you were not able to change member(s) priority in order to set the highest (for new Commander role) to, let me say, Switch n°4 and to set, concurrently, a less higher priority (compared to actual ones set on actual Commander and Standby members) for new Standby role to Switch n°3?

After such procedure do force a redundancy switchover to let Switch n°1 and n°2 restart with their new member roles (they were ex-Commander and ex-Standby) and to let Switch n°3 and n°4 restart as new Standby and new Commander for the entire Stack...at that point perform a switch renumbering on Switch n°1 and n°2 as explained on the Technical Whitepaper: new Id for Switch n°1 should be 1 (instead of actual 2) and new Id for Switch n°2 should be 2 (instead of actual 1).

[Linkk]

Could you explain what you mean by "no luck"? Did some kind of error return? Like you said, something like "you cannot shutdown the commander"?

If this is the problem, you should switchover to member 3 and 4 and then do the procedure from the whitepaper.
Switchover changes the commander, it does not change the IDs.

[parnassus]

Yep, I think that that HP 2920 Switch Series Stacking Technical Whitepaper is sufficiently clear about described procedures...

[Viking698]

No I have not change the priority, I was hoping to do that after the renumbering took affect. 

When I did the redundancy switch over it change the commander to from switch 2 to switch 1, but the member id's did not change. So switch 1 says it is still member id 2 and switch 2 member id 1.  Switch 3 and 4 have alway been members. 

Change switch id 3 and 4 to be command and standby then renumber? Is that possible in a chain configuration or would it have to be ring?

[Viking698]

What I mean by no luck was just that. I tried to follow the direction I had found from hp on this but it only listed changing switches if they were members not commander and standby

I did remove all switches from the stack except the commander, was hoping if it did not see any other switch I could remove the commander. It did not work. I was hoping that it should just change the member id if it only saw one switch.

Will try again.

Thanks for the help

[parnassus]

---

Viking698 wrote: No I have not change the priority, I was hoping to do that after the renumbering took affect. 

When I did the redundancy switch over it change the commander to from switch 2 to switch 1, but the member id's did not change. So switch 1 says it is still member id 2 and switch 2 member id 1.  Switch 3 and 4 have alway been members. 

That's because redundancy switchover procedure purpose is not Stack Member Id(s) renumbering but forcing the re-election of a new Commander for the entire Stack (the node with second higher priority of the entire Stack will become, as fallback, the new Commander and the Commander will take the Standby role...so if your second higher priority Stack Member in list was the Switch n°1 with Id 2 and the highest priority value was owned by the Switch n°2 with Id 1 the redundancy switchover operation you did switched the Commander from Switch n°2 with Id 1 to Switch n°1 with Id 2, the redundancy switchover procedure doesn't/didn't care about Stack Member Id numbering scheme, I'm quite sure  it looks at Stack Members priority values to rule out the switchover operation and assign a new Commander and a new Standby for the entire Stack).

Change switch id 3 and 4 to be command and standby then renumber? Is that possible in a chain configuration or would it have to be ring?

---

IMHO Yes, why not?

[Viking698]

Ok thanks when I have the chance again will try.

I do have another odd question reguarding the chain topology. I keep finding 2 different ways that the cables should be setup. When I first got the switch I set them up as in this picture.

What I keep finding is this picture.

Just wondering which is correct, not sure if it matters just figured I would ask.

Thanks again. Will let you know what happens.

[parnassus]

Yep, the screenshot above refers to HP ProCurve 2920 Switch Series Installation and Getting Started Guide (2013), the screenshot below came from the HP 2920 Switch Series Stacking Technical Whitepaper (2015)...I think there isn't a real difference about Stacking Cables placing between those two different ways (remember both are used to create a Chain Topology Stack).

Then a statement from the Technical Whitepaper cited above:

"There is no requirement to connect a chain (ALSO valid for a ring I add) topology in this exact way. For example, the four member chain does not need to have stacking port 1 on member 2 connected to stacking port 1 on member 1 (the top switch is member 1 and next switch is member 2, and so on). Stacking port 2 on member 2 may be connected to stacking port 1 on member 1.

Any one of the two stacking ports on the stacking module can be used to connect to any stacking port on the stacking module of the neighboring switch."

So it's a matter of how much you like having Stacking Cables in a way or another...personally I would use another different cabling scheme (especially reading statements reported above): since in Comware IRF implementation an essential requirement is that IRF Logical port 1 should always connect to IRF Logical Port 2 of the next IRF Stack member and there is a pretty standard way of binding physical ports to logical IRF Ports...I would use the same cabling methods found in IRF with the Aruba 2920 backplane stacking.

In other terms:

• Switch 1 Stacking Module Port 1 <-- Stacking Cable n°1 --> Switch 2 Stacking Module Port 2
• Switch 2 Stacking Module Port 1 <-- Stacking Cable n°2 --> Switch 3 Stacking Module Port 2
• Switch 3 Stacking Module Port 1 <-- Stacking Cable n°3 --> Switch 4 Stacking Module Port 2
• Switch 4 Stacking Module Port 1 <-- Stacking Cable n°4 --> Switch 1 Stacking Module Port 2 <== This additional Stacking Cable n°4, if used, will create the loop back to Switch 1 and let the Stack to switch from a Chain Topology to a Ring Topology (which is better).

In any case both cabling methods you posted are valid.