Catalyst 9000 cross-stack EtherChannel

[passakorn.m]

Can this design possible ?

[Seb Rupik]

Hi there,

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

cheers,

Seb.

[Scott Hodgdon · Accepted solution]

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

PREVIEW

[passakorn.m]

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

[Scott Hodgdon]

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

PREVIEW

[balaji.bandi]

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

[paul driver]

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.

[Leo Laohoo]

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.