12-15-2015 12:36 PM - edited 03-08-2019 03:07 AM
Hello,
I was wondering if it will ever be possible to "merge" "allowed-vlan" lists in inherited port-profiles together ??
Today, it seems the "child" just replaces the allowed-vlan list from the parent.
port-profile type ethernet PARENT
switchport mode trunk
switchport trunk allowed vlans 900
port-profile type ethernet CHILD
inherit port-profile PARENT
switchport trunk allowed vlans 1,2,3
exit
(note: "add" keyword is today not allowed but may indicate "merge", without "add" may indicate "replace" ??)
show port-profile name CHILD shows:
switchport trunk allowed vlans 1,2,3
not
switchport trunk allowed vlans 1,2,3,900
12-15-2015 01:46 PM
I don't think so unless you explicitly add the config on each interface that deviates from the profile.
-Raj
10-13-2016 03:04 AM
Are you saying the the config of a port-profile and the local config on the interfaces are indeed merged together ? also the "allowed vlan" list on trunk ports ?
10-13-2016 03:12 AM
Let me explain why this would be a good feature: in an FCOE deployment, Cisco itself recommends to NOT use the same VSAN/VLAN numbers on the red/blue fabric switch pairs. This means that on the blue switch, you use FCOE VLAN 600 and on the red one, you use FCOE VLAN/VSAN 601 for example. However , if you run ESX clusters, you need to make sure port-config is consistent across all ESX cluster members, port-profiles feature would be ideal for this, however, this doesn't work because all VLANs are the same except the VSAN VLAN which is different on red/blue switch pairs,Inheritance could solve this but not correctly implemented (it is not inheritance, it is replacement). So port-profiles = good idea + bad implementation
Discover and save your favorite ideas. Come back to expert answers, step-by-step guides, recent topics, and more.
New here? Get started with these tips. How to use Community New member guide