cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
cancel
1657
Views
25
Helpful
7
Replies

Catalyst 9000 cross-stack EtherChannel

passakorn.m
Beginner
Beginner

Can this design possible ?

 

 

1 Accepted Solution

Accepted Solutions

Scott Hodgdon
Cisco Employee
Cisco Employee
passakorn.m,
What the picture shows is not supported. You cannot form an EtherChannel between two logically separated switches (9200 1 and 9200 5 in the picture). If 9200 1 and 9200 5 were in the same stack (where they would then be logically 1 switch), then you could create an EtherChannel between the stack and the 9500 SWV.

Cheers,
Scott Hodgdon

Senior Technical Marketing Engineer

Enterprise Networking and Cloud Group

View solution in original post

7 Replies 7

Seb Rupik
VIP Advisor VIP Advisor
VIP Advisor

Hi there,

Yes, this is standard a Multichassis EtherChannel (MEC) setup.

 

cheers,

Seb.

Scott Hodgdon
Cisco Employee
Cisco Employee
passakorn.m,
What the picture shows is not supported. You cannot form an EtherChannel between two logically separated switches (9200 1 and 9200 5 in the picture). If 9200 1 and 9200 5 were in the same stack (where they would then be logically 1 switch), then you could create an EtherChannel between the stack and the 9500 SWV.

Cheers,
Scott Hodgdon

Senior Technical Marketing Engineer

Enterprise Networking and Cloud Group

in the picture C9200 1 to 5 are the same stack ring. so cross stack EtherChannel is possible. am i correct ?

passakorn.m,
Yes, if they are all part of the same stack.
I missed the "Stack" in "Stack Ring' in the picture, and so I thought it was some other kind of ring like REP.

Cheers,
Scott Hodgdon

Senior Technical Marketing Engineer

Enterprise Networking and Cloud Group

balaji.bandi
VIP Community Legend VIP Community Legend
VIP Community Legend

Cat 9500 stackwise virtual and otehr can be part of the  Cat 9200 part of single Stack with uplink connected to Cat 9500

 

BB

***** Rate All Helpful Responses *****

How to Ask The Cisco Community for Help

paul driver
VIP Expert VIP Expert
VIP Expert

Hello

Yes that looks fine -But would suggest the uplinks to the core if applicable to be cross-stacked mec and also that they originate from member switches not the active/standby switches, as such if failure of the member switch occurs then you just lose uplinks as such convergence simplified and outage is minimized as the active/standby roles are not affected, in turn if you lose the active switch then you dent lose uplink connectivity.


Please rate and mark as an accepted solution if you have found any of the information provided useful.
This then could assist others on these forums to find a valuable answer and broadens the community’s global network.

Kind Regards
Paul

Leo Laohoo
VIP Community Legend VIP Community Legend
VIP Community Legend

Move the uplink from 9200-1 to 9200-3 or 9200-4.  

Avoid putting the first uplink on 9200-1 or 9200-2. 

NOTE:  The redundant uplink on 9200-5 is in an ideal spot.

Getting Started

Find answers to your questions by entering keywords or phrases in the Search bar above. New here? Use these resources to familiarize yourself with the community:

Recognize Your Peers