9300 Stack renumbering

[abhiram]

If we have stack of 2 X 9300 switches, stack needs to be renumbered, do we need to renumber the stack members to unused number first and reboot it multiple times to take slot renumbering

Eg: sw1 is member 1 and sw2 is member 2 . End state requirement is to swap the slot numbers.

should i follow below steps

sw 1 renumber 3

sw 2 renumber 1

sw 3 renumber 2  

reboot

OR 

step 1.

sw 1 renumber 3

sw 2 renumber 1

reboot

Step 2.

sw 3 renumber 2

reboot

[balaji.bandi]

Is this Live setup - if so you need to be very cautious since switch number change will also change the port numbers.

If  this is an office line  and start of stack building

Switch 1 number 1 and priority 15 start with

Switch 2 number 2 and priority 14

Switch 3 .... So on

until you save the config reload this will not have any effect.

here is the config reference :

https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/products/collateral/switches/catalyst-9300-series-switches/white-paper-c11-741468.html

[abhiram]

Thanks for the response. So I need to have downtime , need to fix the priority and reconfigured ports where required as well. But does this mean I cannot renumber a switch to an existing switch number. I need to change

1. sw1 >> Sw3 ; sw 2 >> Sw1 ; sw 3>> Sw2
2. Save and reload

[balaji.bandi]

sw1 >> Sw3 ; sw 2 >> Sw1 ; sw 3>> Sw2

This what desired final you can do with downtime to change the number and reload, once you change the numbers, port- numbers changes, so you need to keep that in consideration, if any patching information you have already need to update accordingly)

Make sure your hard-wired backside also matters(for stack cable), when you changing this, that is the reason I shared the document.

whichever switch you like to be master makes it a higher priority than a slave and the member so on.

The priority we mentioned so when the Stack reloads, the higher priority becomes the master of the stack, if not available next one becomes the master, this gives an advantage when you connecting back to distribute switch or core switch for the uplinks,

Hope this makes sense?

[paul driver]

Hello

Why do you need to renumber the switchs in the same stack, you can reprioritise the switchs without renumbering them, As @balaji.bandi stated renumbering is something you really need to do with caution

[wad1]

Why does the reason for renumbering matter? If renumbering just makes my stack neater, that's my decision, right? Reprioritizing the stack members is a different cup of tea altogether, and the two have different use cases. How about simply answering the question? The question was how, not why.

[balaji.bandi]

Why does the reason for renumbering matter?

- it matter, when the switch reboot, who ever come first they will become master,as per the stack master election process.

also switch numbering in terms of port allocation gi 1/0/1 (sw1) G2/0/1 (sw2) ..so on

If renumbering just makes my stack neater, that's my decision, right?

- sure you looking to more ground running for no reason to check where the users conencted.

- cisco best practice advise to do so.

High level :

1. Switch number to tied up the ports numbers

2. priority who will be the master and memeber (you can also disable some device not to elect as master).

above practice done to make it standard, also most cases you only may have 2 uplinks, so Master and Slave should be Sw1 and Sw2 (since other stack members have no uplink modules, if that switch elect as master, then there is no reachability from network to device)

it is ok you sitting next to stack have 1 stack, if you have 100 or 1000 stacks in the network hard to manage engineers running in the ground for no reason, so that is the reason standard operation policy should be in place, how you config the switch - easy for troubleshoot and replacement.

[wad1]

You kind of just described my latest use case: I have a 3-switch stack in a new building an hour away. The stack was first implemented with a switch we had in stock, just to start connecting building automation, still during building. Later, the ordered mGig switches arrived, and we added two of those to the first one. They thus became #2 and #3, respectively, despite being much superior models to the older one. However, most users will be connected to the mGig switches, and the first (lower grade model) switch will mostly be used for low priority traffic, like building automation. Uplink (just one yet) will be moved to the first mGig switch, and a second one added. However, for neatness (and ease of management, like you describe,) our stacks are always set up with ascending numbers as you descend in the cabinet, and that is still the other way around in this stack. To lock this down, I need to specify it, and reload the entire stack, before having someone move the uplink. (Thus, I'm looking to swap members #1 and #3.)

However, it would be a great help if port renumbering as it refers to configuration wasn't just a vague thing that would happen on reload, but was described better, and the original question still hasn't been answered, either. So  I'll try. Please let me know if I'm incorrect: In my case, I can renumber #1 -> #3, then #3->#1. In the original question #1->#2, then #2->1. There's no need for the intermediate step of #1->#3, then #2->#1,  and lastly #3->#2, as no change occurs until reload anyway. I take it in my use case, with only switch #1 in use so far, all I need to do is copy all used port configurations from #1 to the corresponding ports on #3 first, particularly the uplink, then pull the switcharoo on the switch numbers 1>>3 and 3>>1, before reloading. Afterwards, I can clean up by resetting the configs on switch #1.

Am I right?

[balaji.bandi]

you are overlap with other requirement with the orginal post vs your requirement (i would adivse to post new thread for more clarity than follow the same)

i will answer in short :

we always suggest to numbering when you planning time and installing in greenfiled, some case that is not possible organically capacity has been changed.

in that case if you looking new model to master switch and old to be slave, in the case re-numbering of switch number means ports also going to change, this means you need to Physically patch back where they rquired to be. (this is constrains, nothing we can change on this case)

as you mentioned steps should work as expected - you are in right path, as long as end device mapping to correct port (why i say this, some time G1/0/1 belong to VLAN 10 and Gi 2/0/1 belong to VLAN 100,)

take maintenance window and planned the works as you planned and test and monitor.

Not that you mentioned the model -  Cat 9300 UXM has mgig ports i take advantage of this being master.

Hope that help you.

Good white paper for reference :

https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/products/collateral/switches/catalyst-9300-series-switches/white-paper-c11-741468.html

[wad1]

You hit the nail on the head - the new switches are C9300L UXG's, the older one (current master) a standard C9300L.

I'm happy to hear I'm on the right track. Port configs should be copied to where they're going to be after reload. Physically, only the uplink should need repatching, but not at this time.

Maintenance window is, fortunately, no problem, as the building isn't going to be used for a few weeks yet.

Only problem so far is, I can't seem to find the command for renumbering in the switch CLI, but that is another question altogether, so I'll naturally start a different thread for that, for clarity. Thank you so much for your replies.

The way I understood the thread starter, he wanted to know if he needed to renumber 1>3, 2>1, 3>2. My reason for posting to this thread, was that I would like to know the answer to this question, as it applies equally to my case. As nobody seemed to reply to the actual question, but instead got hung up into why he wanted to do that, I thought it prudent to point out what the question was in the first place.

My attempt to reply to the original thread starter, was that I think he can just switch 1>2, 2>1 without going the long way of 1>3, 2>1, 3>2, because the change doesn't happen until reload anyway. I was hoping to get this confirmed. (Or rejected, if it's incorrect.) I'm sorry clarity was lost in the process.

[balaji.bandi]

I can't seem to find the command for renumbering in the switch CLI (should be done at #) not config t mode

Guide provided has good steps

before going any further - ( check the compatability)

Are you looking to stack UXG and L switch

Cisco Catalyst 9300 StackWise-480

Cisco 9300L/9300LM Stackwise-320

[wad1]

Ah! As it reconfigures the stack, I was naturally looking in config mode. Also, the documentation I found, stated that it should be done in mode, but WHICH mode was missing.

The switches are:

2x C9300L-48UXG-4X
1x C9300L-48PF-4X

...and they're already stacked, so I guess they're compatible.

Thanks!

[balaji.bandi]

ok all L Model can stack together.. hope you find how to renumber the device.,

[wad1]

I did. And it worked like a charm!
Thank you, @balaji.bandi.

So: To reply to @abhiram:
1st step:
Be aware that Gi1/0/X will become Gi2/0/X and vice versa, but the configurations will stay with the port numbers, not the physical ports. This goes for EVERY SINGLE PORT on both switches. Take care to move or copy port configurations as needed to keep functionality, and/or prepare for  immediate repatching to reflect the change. If you're remote, copying the uplink configuration to the other switch is extremely important. This is usually where the SHTF.

2nd step (don't literally write the #'s, they're the enable prompt, where these commands should be issued):
#switch 1 renumber 2
#switch 2 renumber 1

3rd step:
#reload

Hey presto! You're done.

[balaji.bandi]

Glad it helped our suggestion, we marked as resolved now.

Note  : in the furture open a new thread, in that you can reference the old reference, that easy to follow.