cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
cancel
Announcements
Join Customer Connection to register!
298
Views
0
Helpful
3
Replies
hjacquemin
Beginner

Redudancy 9600 stackwise virtual quad-supervisor

Hi Guys,

 

I was doing some tests on our new C9600 cluster and I did the following:

 

- Brutally Power off Switch 1 (who was acting as Master);
- One SUP in Switch 2 become master and take over the traffic;

- Check the redundancy status and the second SUP never reach the "STANDBY HOT" status;

 

Is it possible, when the stackwise is broken (only on box left) that the second SUP in the remaining switch get the status of "STANDBY HOT" in case of failure on the only active SUP in that Switch? Or is this behaviour only available on stand-alone installation ?

I search around for the info but I get almost nothing about this situation.

 

Thanks a lot for your help.

 

Hjacquemin

 

3 REPLIES 3
balaji.bandi
VIP Expert

Technically, if the end device is dual home with 2 Cat 9600, the traffic should be not interuptted, if the config is SSO/NSF.

 

We need to more information here :

 

1. Each Device has how many supervisiors ?

2. what is the version of code, and what supervision module is this ?

3. if possible please share the configuriaton and Logs while you done this test to understand.



BB


*** Rate All Helpful Responses ***

Giuseppe Larosa
Hall of Fame Master

Hello @hjacquemin ,

>> Check the redundancy status and the second SUP never reach the "STANDBY HOT" status;

I'm afraid this is expected and the same happened on Cat 6500/6800 with VSS and quad supervisors.

My understanding is that the SSO protocol can be run only on a pair of supervisors . it will be run between the SUP master of each chassis and only a sort of RPR with the secondary SUP of the same chassis.

 

>> Or is this behaviour only available on stand-alone installation ?

in a stand alone chassis the two SUPs can run SSO and form a pair and in this case the standby can reach the STANDBY HOT state.

 

This is just another confirmation that the change of name from VSS To SVL is just marketing in my humble opinion.

 

Hope to help

Giuseppe

 

 

@Giuseppe Larosa  thanks for your feedback ! you seem to confirm my though !

 

About the change from VSS to SVL I think the same than you, just marketing, the idea is the same...

 

That's sad it's not possible to have the 2 SUP from same case active when the second case is totally down, maybe an option to implement in a future release. That would be a must to have in case of Murphy hit us when the 1st case is down ^^