<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>topic c9300switch in Switching</title>
    <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/switching/c9300switch/m-p/4143820#M492143</link>
    <description>&lt;P&gt;Hi,&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I have two switches "c9300 24p " stacked and I want to connect to a switch via connecting two trunks with two ports from the catalyst 2960G.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;The question is: Is this connection make a loop? and if it makes a loop? what's the best practise for connection to benefit the redundancy?&lt;/P&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Mon, 31 Aug 2020 09:13:41 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>mzedanmzedan</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2020-08-31T09:13:41Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>c9300switch</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/switching/c9300switch/m-p/4143820#M492143</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Hi,&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I have two switches "c9300 24p " stacked and I want to connect to a switch via connecting two trunks with two ports from the catalyst 2960G.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;The question is: Is this connection make a loop? and if it makes a loop? what's the best practise for connection to benefit the redundancy?&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 31 Aug 2020 09:13:41 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/switching/c9300switch/m-p/4143820#M492143</guid>
      <dc:creator>mzedanmzedan</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2020-08-31T09:13:41Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: c9300switch</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/switching/c9300switch/m-p/4143878#M492154</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;You have to build a port-channel between both devices. All member-interface together will build a logical link without any loop.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 31 Aug 2020 11:43:33 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/switching/c9300switch/m-p/4143878#M492154</guid>
      <dc:creator>Karsten Iwen</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2020-08-31T11:43:33Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: c9300switch</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/switching/c9300switch/m-p/4143887#M492156</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Thanks&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 31 Aug 2020 12:02:18 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/switching/c9300switch/m-p/4143887#M492156</guid>
      <dc:creator>mzedanmzedan</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2020-08-31T12:02:18Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: c9300switch</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/switching/c9300switch/m-p/4144538#M492212</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;what is the reason of 2 Trunks ? as long as only VLANs allowed in the trunk, that not cause any loops&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;rather as suggested create a Port-channel it got more redundency&amp;nbsp; also.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 01 Sep 2020 15:18:37 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/switching/c9300switch/m-p/4144538#M492212</guid>
      <dc:creator>balaji.bandi</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2020-09-01T15:18:37Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

