SVL and VRRP on C9500

[mnice]

Hello,

I hope you'll be fine

I need information on these two techniques (SVL and VRRP) on C9500

1 - Can the SVL forward the traffic from the SLAVE device to the MASTER device ?

2 - Is it possible to activate VRRP on this type of equipment with multiple interfaces TRUNK connected to multiple switchs (Access For Users, print .....)?

Regards.

[balaji.bandi]

When you build SVL, this becomes one device (Physically 2)  Logically 1

So where is the question of VRRP coming into the picture, since it has only 1 Control Plane?

But as logical switch can participate in VRRP with other SVL domain ? (may be possible)

SVL :

Key business benefits of the SVL include the following:

●      Reduced risk associated with a looped topology

●      Non-stop business communication through the use of a redundant chassis with SSO-enabled supervisors

●      Better return on existing investments via increased bandwidth from access layer

●      Reduced configuration errors and elimination of First Hop Redundancy Protocols (FHRP), such as Hot Standby Routing Protocol (HSRP), GLBP and VRRP

●      Simplified management of a single configuration and fewer operational failure points

https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/products/collateral/switches/catalyst-9000/nb-06-cat-9k-stack-wp-cte-en.html

[mnice]

Hello Balaji,

Thanks for your return.

Just to clarify, this is two different and separate topics (SVL and VRRP)

1 - For SVL, according to your answer yes the slave equipment can forward the traffic !!!

2 - For the VRRP I asked the question in relation to the configuration (Without SVL), is it possible to configure a VRRP on several trunk interfaces with several Vlan ?

Regards.

[balaji.bandi]

2 - For the VRRP I asked the question in relation to the configuration (Without SVL), is it possible to configure a VRRP on several trunk interfaces with several Vlan ?

With out SVL means both the switches act standalone, so I do not see any issue here (if I understand correctly).

[mnice]

2 - For VRRP, yes switches are standalone = If possile to share me the configuration for several Vlan and with several trunk interface for the two gateway.

1 - What is the impact with the VSL ? to my knowledge the VSS has been renamed (Chnaged) VSL on the new generation cisco equipment.

Regards.

[balaji.bandi]

2 - For VRRP, yes switches are standalone = If possile to share me the configuration for several Vlan and with several trunk interface for the two gateway.

here is the guide for you :

https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/ios-xml/ios/ipapp_fhrp/configuration/xe-16/fhp-xe-16-book/fhp-hsrp-mgo.html

1 - What is the impact with the VSL ? to my knowledge the VSS has been renamed (Chnaged) VSL on the new generation cisco equipment.

yes, SVL ( AKA VSS) - old wine in a new bottle, a cisco marketing term, with some improvements, like you can join domains of SVL to one ..so on. you can refer to my URL before provided post.

[mnice]

Hello Balaji,

Thx for your return.

1- VSS/VSL = Done

2- VRRP = you shared a link for the configuration part but on the example indicated the equipment has only one interface to L2 equipments in my case I have the gateways of the users on the L3 and I have several trunk interfaces towards L2 equipments so I can't find how to implement VRRP or others on this type of topologies.

Regards.

[balaji.bandi]

that is example, you can do as many interface config you like (subject to limitation of the product)

@Joseph W. Doherty beat me with config, hope you have found the solution now.

[Joseph W. Doherty]

#1 VSL, VSS?

Yes, but it should be avoided!

#2 Believe so, although with VSS often much need for VRRP is eliminated.

[mnice]

Hello,

1 - What is the impact with the VSL ? to my knowledge the VSS has been renamed (Chnaged) VSL on the new generation cisco equipment.

2 - For VRRP, yes switches are standalone = If possile to share me the configuration for several Vlan and with several trunk interface for the two gateway (Check exemple of topo). Can use the VRRP with topo exemple ?

[mnice]

Hello,

[mnice]

1 - What is the impact with the VSL ? to my knowledge the VSS has been renamed (Chnaged) VSL on the new generation cisco equipment.

[mnice]

2 - For VRRP, yes switches are standalone = If possile to share me the configuration for several Vlan and with several trunk interface for the two gateway (Check exemple of topo). Can use the VRRP with topo exemple ?

[mnice]

[Joseph W. Doherty]

#1, yup, VSL is the "new" term for VSS on 3K and 9K Catalyst switches.

Impact?  Ideally all other devices that connect to a VSS/VSL pair should have a connection to each member switch.

#2, examples?  Many, likely better than I might provide, should be found on Cisco's main site, although probably for HSRP.  (Any FHRP, [HSRP, GLBP, VRRP] would be configured much alike.  BTW, why VRRP rather than a Cisco FHRP?)

[mnice]

Hello Joseph,

Thank you for your return.

1- VSL = I understood the disadvantage with my topo.

2- VRRP solution, 

I chose this technique because of its advantages (Master/Backup, Hello timers, Hold timer, preempt ...) but I can switch to another technique but the problem is that I can't find the right protocol configuration for my topology. I have several trunks to L2 switches and the gateways users are on these L3 equipments 9K

Joseph, if possible to guide me on the configuration of several trunk links as indicated on the topology knowing that the gateways of the subnetworks are configured on these 9K
Int VLAN 1 = IP/Mask
Int VLANX = IP/Mask 

..................

Regards.

[Joseph W. Doherty]

"VRRP solution"

You may have misunderstood the intent of my question, i.e. why use VRRP.

VRRP, and HSRP or GLBP all provide a FHRP.  The latter, though, is often used when working with just Cisco devices, while the former (VRRP) is used when working with other vendor equipment.  If you're just doing a FHRP between Cisco devices, I would recommend using HSRP or GLBP, but you can still use VRRP.

As how to implement any of these, links/ports being trunks or access, really doesn't matter.

For these, on a L3 switch, you usually implement VRRP/HSRP/GLBP on SVIs.  Each L3 switch, with a SVI on the same (actual) VLAN, would have the VRRP/HSRP/GLBP configuration.

As the same VLAN, with the SVIs, needs to be on multiple switches, and as there's usually more than one VLAN on these multiple switches, generally a trunk link carries the "common" (to the multiple switches) VLANs.

e.g. (HSRP between two L3 switches)

SW1

interface GigabitEthernet1/0/1
switchport mode trunk
!
interface Vlan10
ip address 192.168.10.2 255.255.255.0
standby 10 ip 192.168.10.1
!
interface Vlan20
ip address 192.168.20.2 255.255.255.0
standby 20 ip 192.168.20.1

Switch#sh stan b
P indicates configured to preempt.
|
Interface Grp Pri P State Active Standby Virtual IP
Vl10 10 100 Standby 192.168.10.3 local 192.168.10.1
Vl20 20 100 Standby 192.168.20.3 local 192.168.20.1

SW2

interface GigabitEthernet1/0/1
switchport mode trunk
!
interface Vlan10
ip address 192.168.10.3 255.255.255.0
standby 10 ip 192.168.10.1
!
interface Vlan20
ip address 192.168.20.3 255.255.255.0
standby 20 ip 192.168.20.1

Switch#sh stan b
P indicates configured to preempt.
|
Interface Grp Pri P State Active Standby Virtual IP
Vl10 10 100 Active local 192.168.10.2 192.168.10.1
Vl20 20 100 Active local 192.168.20.3 192.168.20.1

[Joseph W. Doherty]

Oh, BTW, my config example is from PT, which doesn't appear to support VRRP.

However, here is a Cisco reference to VRRP.  Its configuration is a bit different, but in principle, much like HSRP's.

[mnice]

Hello Joseph,

Thank you for return.

Well received but just one question:

The interfaces Gi1/0/0 indicated in the document for the router 1 and 2 they represent which links those between them or those towards the switches of access or distrib?

Knowing that in my case I have 3 interfaces on each SW L3 towards the access switches and one between the L3 device.

Regards.