Cisco 9300

[croftsd23]

I am looking at clustering a pair of 9300 Switches.  However, the connecting devices cannot be terminated on both Switches.  The question I have is in relation to advantages of undertaking this feature with this setup.   Does anyone know any failure scenario's that would result in the traffic still traversing the primary Switch.  

[balaji.bandi]

Is this Cat 9300 or Nexus 9K -

Cat 9300  - do stacking

Nexus 9K does vPC

either case, if the device singled homed you can not have advantage of redundency,  (on you can do if master switch fail)

ask Physically move the Server/ device to next Master switch to fix the issue.

Example :

If the switch has 2 switches

Swtich 1 and Switch 2 - server connected to switch 1 - if the switch 2 failes server not have any impact here.

if teh switch 1 Fails, switch 2 become master - at this stage server is offline, in this case moving from switch1 port to switch2 fix temparary issue.

best is make sure server has dual connection to take advantage,

Hope this make sense ? or am i misunderstood your requirement.

[Joseph W. Doherty]

There's one situation where what you can described can offer some advantage in a failure situation.

One the cluster of 9300 switches, VLANs can span switches in the cluster.  So, if a switch member fails, you can physically reconnect critical ports to another switch member configured for the same VLAN.  If the port is configured like the failed port, only physical reconnecting is needed.  Otherwise, you must first configure the port.

Again, the advantage is often less down time.  Further, if the "spare" port is free and pre-configured, less chance of making a mistake when moving the port.

BTW, most understand this approach if you're only dealing with typical L2 hosts, but it can also be applied to L3.  Rather than using a routed port, you can use a VLAN port and SVI.