SG500 cross stack etherchannel

[davide.fichera]

Is it possible to configure a cross stack etherchannel between 2 SG500 (in stack) and 1 SG200/SG300?

[Tom Watts]

Yes

-Tom
Please mark answered for helpful posts

[davide.fichera]

Hi Tom, I talked with CISCO SMB support this morning and according to them is not possible. You answered "Yes". Have you configured this solution in the past or do you know if this is reported in a cisco doc?

Thanks

[Tom Watts]

Yes, I have. Can you provide this case number?

-Tom
Please mark answered for helpful posts

[davide.fichera]

I think I cannot provide the case number for legal restriction... However. after the case was created an engineer ask me to get in touch with the SMB divsion.

Cisco Small Business Support Center Contacts http://www.cisco.com/en/US/support/tsd_cisco_small_business_support_center_contacts.html

I talked with a Cisco technician via phone. He told me that this solution is not possible... Moreover I cannot find documents that confirm that

[Tom Watts]

The case number is contained on a Cisco internal database for tracking purposes. It is not publically accessible. There is not a legal consequence for sharing the case number (I'm sure you could dig through plenty of forum posts that do share them).

If you do not want to share on this community forum, please email me or send as a message through the forum services.

-Tom
Please mark answered for helpful posts

[Dan Miley]

Davide,

please send me the case number and I will follow up with the engineer assigned.  I believe this should work, but we can confirm.

damiley at cisco.com

Dan

[eric.ahernandez]

Hi all, I was wondering the exact same thing, I'm considering a similar design but doing an etherchannel between two cross-stacked SG500X and 3 UCS servers (C240 M3). Something like this:

_________                                  __________

|              |                                  |                 |

| UCS      |----------------------------------| SG500X    |

|  C240     |                                 |__________|

|  M3        |                                   __________

|              |                                  |                 |

|              |----------------------------------| SG500X    |

|________|                                  |__________|

I don't know if these switches could support this kine of cross stacked etherchannels, if it does then I'm guessing it's the same whether it's a server o a switch connected to it. Thanks in advance

Edit: Sorry for the ugly ascii drawing I just did on a whim...    

El mensaje fue editado por: Eric A. Hernandez Gonzalez

[Tom Watts]

Yes, this should also be fine. A stack of switches is no different than the standalone switch. Just a different unit number when you build the LAG.

-Tom
Please mark answered for helpful posts

[davide.fichera]

Hi Eric,

I think that you have NICs in team (probably with a Fault Tolerance configuration: one link is active at a time) ... This is a little bit different ...

[eric.ahernandez]

Hi Davide,

Yes that's usually the case, But I was thinking of doing an active-active NIC teaming configuration and configuring the port-channel to the cross-stack SG500X. Tom says it's possible and I'm thinking that as well but unfortunately I don't have the necessary equipment yet to do the lab, so I'll consider it for my design and have a backup plan for my implementation (which would be doing the port-channel to only one of the SG500X)

[Tom Watts]

Even if the LAG doesn't work, you'd just disable spanning tree and filter the bpdu.

-Tom
Please mark answered for helpful posts

[davide.fichera]

Cisco support team gave a more detailed answer this morning, based on the the topology depicted in the attached image:

"Yes, you will be able to configure an Etherchannel between the Stacked SG500s and any of the SG200/300 series switches..."

So we just have to try...

Thanks to All of you for the support.

Davide

[stevenrodenburg1]

I have build LACP Channels (LAG) between dual-NIC Servers and pairs of stacked SG500-28 Switches.

The Servers (Windows, Linux) run their NIC's active-active, where each NIC is connected to a different SG500 chassis. Works fine.