cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
cancel
2678
Views
0
Helpful
9
Replies

Back to back vPC DCI and hsrp questions

Madura Malwatte
Level 4
Level 4

Hi, I just wanted to confirm a few things in terms of vPC design.

Questions:

1. The DCI is connected via layer 2 link using vPC. It's not a full mesh but instead cross connected. DC1-01 is connected to DC2-02 and DC1-02 connected to DC2-01. Is this a problem? The design guide doesn't have it crossed over.

2. How would I configure the HSRP addressing on both DC's for the same stretched vlan? Example vlan 10. Assume FHRP isolation is in place between the DC's. Do I need to have a unique vlan 10 ip address on each vPC peer core switch and then all four switches would share the same hsrp address? Do you see any problems here?

3. Can I do ospf peering between the two data centers using a vPC vlan 20 SVI interface between the 01 or 02 switches?

4. Any issues you see with the access switch that is connected as orphan to both DC's? Assuming the core 01 or 02 switches are the root bridge, one of the access switch uplinks will be SPT blocking state right. Any other problems apart from this? 

 

Please refer to my diagram:

- two Data centers - each data center with back-to-back vPC between core and edge switches (n9k and n3k).

- both DC's connected via DCI using vPC (not in full mesh)

- Primary and standby vPC role labelled on diagram as P  and S.

- a special access switch is connected to a single vPC switch in each DC (DC1-01 and DC2-01)

- FHRP isolation is in place

 

Screen Shot 2019-06-22 at 2.02.51 am.jpg

9 Replies 9

wtrout0892
Level 1
Level 1

Did you end up getting this to work. We are looking to do something similar. 

lietadielko
Level 1
Level 1

What is the reason to have the DCI links crossed?

 

please let me know if you had any progress, wanted to implement the same, together with MACSec on DCI lines. 

Thanks Jason, I saw that link, which is for n7k's. 

But I wasn't able to find anything for n9300 with MACSec. But I hope it should work with some limitations the same, like to use MACSec on physical interfaces only, and not on L2/L3 port-channels. And for L3 requirements use peering between SVI's.

 

Which 9300 are you using?

nexus 93180YC-FX, they are MACSec capable with Security license in NXOS mode. 

Sergiu.Daniluk
VIP Alumni
VIP Alumni

Hi,

First thing which which I want to highlight there, is that you have 4 VPC domains changed in double-sided vPC. As far as I remember, this is something which was not supported and maximum was 3 domains - not sure if anything changed in newer versions. However, I would still advise you to avoid this chaining, as it can complicate things especially if you need to troubleshoot some inter-dc flows.

Simplification of the design can be done either by removing the DCI vpc, or vpc domains of DC#-03-04.

Opting for the second option, your topology will look like this:

 

In order to isolate the HSRP, you must configure a Port Access Control List (PACL) on the DCI port-channel and disable HSRP GARPs on the SVIs for the VLANs that move across the DCI.

ip access-list DENY_HSRP_IP
  10 deny udp any 224.0.0.2/32 eq 1985
  20 deny udp any 224.0.0.102/32 eq 1985 
  30 permit ip any any 

interface <DCI-Port-Channel>
  ip port access-group DENY_HSRP_IP in
  
interface Vlan <x>
  no ip arp gratuitous hsrp duplicate

Alternatively, you can adopt a more modern solution like VXLAN EVPN. Here you can find the the whitepapers for vxlan:

https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/products/collateral/switches/nexus-9000-series-switches/whitepaper-c11-742114.html 

https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/products/collateral/switches/nexus-9000-series-switches/white-paper-c11-739942.html  

Yeach, I have it in our Roadmap, but for now Customer didn't accepted it and for the first step they wanted to implement DCI. I think we need to make some pressure, and discuss VXLAN EVPN option ;)