<?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 Re: Switching c9300 in Switching</title>
    <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/switching/switching-c9300/m-p/4177067#M495253</link>
    <description>&lt;P&gt;well the most redundant way would be using 2 physical uplinks from each of access switches and connect one to the first stack member of 9300 and second uplink to the second member of stack of 9300. Then you can create port-channel to use both of the links for bigger throughput and still you will get a redundancy in case of one uplink failure or one of 9300 failure.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Sun, 01 Nov 2020 21:27:02 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>kubn2</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2020-11-01T21:27:02Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>Switching c9300</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/switching/switching-c9300/m-p/4177060#M495247</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;I have newly two stacked switch C 9300&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I will replace their with core 3750&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;What's the best practise for the new design for network?&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Sun, 01 Nov 2020 20:34:38 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/switching/switching-c9300/m-p/4177060#M495247</guid>
      <dc:creator>mzedanmzedan</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2020-11-01T20:34:38Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Switching c9300</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/switching/switching-c9300/m-p/4177061#M495248</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Hi,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Well I guess you are replacing old 3750 with new 9300 not other way around as you wrote &lt;LI-EMOJI id="lia_slightly-smiling-face" title=":slightly_smiling_face:"&gt;&lt;/LI-EMOJI&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Best practice? Well I always take such opportunities to clear the config from some old unused stuff (like old description of the interfaces), if you didn't have VTP or something like this then it might be worth it to implement it etc. Don't forget about all security features to prevent some users from breaking your network more or less unintentionally, use description to describe interface it will help you in future maintenance. It's really hard to point all things that you should do, I pointed only some basic stuff but before replacement you should check what would you also like to see in the config that can benefit you and your network.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Sun, 01 Nov 2020 20:46:30 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/switching/switching-c9300/m-p/4177061#M495248</guid>
      <dc:creator>kubn2</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2020-11-01T20:46:30Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Switching c9300</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/switching/switching-c9300/m-p/4177063#M495249</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;I want to make a&amp;nbsp;&lt;SPAN&gt;redundancy for all access switches with two Switches C9300, how I made this?&amp;nbsp;&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Sun, 01 Nov 2020 21:20:30 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/switching/switching-c9300/m-p/4177063#M495249</guid>
      <dc:creator>mzedanmzedan</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2020-11-01T21:20:30Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Switching c9300</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/switching/switching-c9300/m-p/4177064#M495250</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;First, backup the existing config, Second, you can copy and paste the existing config into a notepad and then copy from notepad to the 9300. Most of the config should be the same and should work on the 9300 but there will some differences in the config (like QOS config) that you would need to modify first before pasting it into the 9300. If the existing 3750 interfaces are not gig, you would need to modify the interfaces numbering before pasting them into the 9300&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;HTH&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Sun, 01 Nov 2020 21:21:39 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/switching/switching-c9300/m-p/4177064#M495250</guid>
      <dc:creator>Reza Sharifi</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2020-11-01T21:21:39Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Switching c9300</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/switching/switching-c9300/m-p/4177065#M495251</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Are you doing Dot1X?&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Sun, 01 Nov 2020 21:21:41 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/switching/switching-c9300/m-p/4177065#M495251</guid>
      <dc:creator>Leo Laohoo</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2020-11-01T21:21:41Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Switching c9300</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/switching/switching-c9300/m-p/4177067#M495253</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;well the most redundant way would be using 2 physical uplinks from each of access switches and connect one to the first stack member of 9300 and second uplink to the second member of stack of 9300. Then you can create port-channel to use both of the links for bigger throughput and still you will get a redundancy in case of one uplink failure or one of 9300 failure.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Sun, 01 Nov 2020 21:27:02 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/switching/switching-c9300/m-p/4177067#M495253</guid>
      <dc:creator>kubn2</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2020-11-01T21:27:02Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Switching c9300</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/switching/switching-c9300/m-p/4177079#M495256</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Put both units into a stack and dual link the downstream switches.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Sun, 01 Nov 2020 23:17:44 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/switching/switching-c9300/m-p/4177079#M495256</guid>
      <dc:creator>Leo Laohoo</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2020-11-01T23:17:44Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Switching c9300</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/switching/switching-c9300/m-p/4177249#M495271</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Image 1 for already applied Design with 3750&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Image 2 for the design that's I want to install it.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 02 Nov 2020 09:38:01 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/switching/switching-c9300/m-p/4177249#M495271</guid>
      <dc:creator>mzedanmzedan</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2020-11-02T09:38:01Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

