Using Existing HP switch configuration to another (HP 1950)

[azkerm]

Hi There,

I have two identical HP switches (1950) and I would like to replicate the same setting on one to another as they are both going to be pretty much the same except for the accessing IPs. I can manually edit the IPs of the switch later once configs are copied.

I know that the switches can be stacked (aka IRF). Is it ideal I do stacking? and will a change on a single switch reflects another? In the meantime, I couldn't use the extended CLI as I'm unable to find its password.

Sorry, this is my first time with an L3 HP switch and I'm learning my way around. It will be great, if someone could link me to PDFs or manuals that I can refer.

[parnassus]

If you go with IRF (Intelligent Resilient Framework) - which is IMHO a very good thing - replicating the same settings on the second unit isn't necessary since both units, once the IRF is deployed, will be part of the same IRF Stack (AFAIK it's better to start first with the IRF configuration and only then decide about other ports/services settings keeping in mind that then you mange a Switch Cluster an not single indipendent Switches).

For IRF you must reserve and use one (or more, better) 10GE or SFP+ links as IRF Physical Ports (binding it/them to the respective IRF Ports on both members).

With only two units you are forced to deploy a Daisy Chain Topology (Member 1 <==> Member 2).

If you can afford the usage of 10GE or SFP+ links (better use two physical ports on each IRF Ports for resiliency) go with IRF.

Start with (and keep) them updated (actually release Comware 7.10 R3113P05 is available).

Manuals and Software can be found on the HPE Support Site, it's just sufficient you digit your Switch name or Product Number and follow the links: start here and follow "Related links" links on right (Technical Support / Manuals in particular).

[Vince-Whirlwind]

---

@parnassus wrote:

With only two units you are forced to deploy a Daisy Chain Topology (Member 1 <==> Member 2).

---

...or it can be a Ring topology :)

[parnassus]

Yep...eventually...yes...that made me remember when an old Professor of (Euclidean) Geometry at University once said that a straight line is only a particular curve (the one that has an infinite radius...). ;-).

Edit: it's like a coincidence, the ring/bus with 2 IRF Members only was partially discussed here where I was trying to understand what type of "ring" that IRF Ports connection (2nd case) would provide with respect to the real Ring Topology with, at least, three IRF members.

[Vince-Whirlwind]

In an IRF "Daisy-Chain", each member is connected to at least one other member, 2 members are only connected to one neighbour.

In an IRF "Ring", every member is connected to 2 other members.

Essentially, a "Ring" means there are 2 paths off every single switch.

In a 2-chassis IRF, if there is a single connection between the 2 members, it's a "Daisy-chain". If there are two connections, then assuming each member has 2 IRF ports, it's a "Ring".

Your IRF should be a "Ring", for redundancy.

I haven't played with IRF for ages - I can't remember: can you put multiple switchports into  the same IRF port?

[parnassus]

Mmmm...(In a 2-chassis IRF. If there are two connections, then assuming each member has 2 IRF ports, it's a "Ring".)...well, totally possible and totally working (as reported on the other Thread I mentioned above)...but more than a ring, it looks like a (non blocking) loop to me!

By the way, binding more than one (TenGe) Physical Port to each (logical) IRF Port on each IRF Member is a recommended action to provide (links/ports) resiliency and better IRF traffic throughput between involved IRF Members.

[Vince-Whirlwind]

---

By the way, binding more than one (TenGe) Physical Port to each (logical) IRF Port on each IRF Member is a recommended action to provide (links/ports) resiliency and better IRF traffic throughput between involved IRF Members.

---

Ah good - I couldn't remember. Nowadays, 10Gb just isn't always enough.