Hello, I'm working on a data center project where I'm migrating 6 x /24 subnets from one OSPF area to another. The main aim of this is to not incur downtime - the two environments have layer two connectivity and SVIs in all the inside subnets. Initially one way I was thinking about doing this was to advertise the same subnets from a different area but with a higher cost, then remove the same subnets from the old area one by one while adjusting HSRP priorities (temporary asymmetric routing is acceptable). After some conversations with colleagues and a bit of Googling, this doesn't seem like the best approach as it can cause unpredictable results into area 0. Has anyone had any experience with this previously, or suggest a better way of doing it? Regards, Jake ... View more

Hi, Is it possible to simultaneously log to more than one syslog server at a time with v15 IOS on a CAT4506E? Regards, Jake ... View more

Hello, We have 6 Cisco 3750-X switches and we would like to configure Stackwise and Stackpower. Stackwise is not an issue, we've done that lots of times and is a technology we're very familiar with. There seems to be some confusion surrounding the combination of Stackwise and Stackpower used together. Is it possible to run multiple power stacks (1 power stack with 4 switches, 1 power stack with 2 switches), and this be in the same Stackwise stack (shared control/management plane - interfaces 1/0/1 - 6/0/24)? Regards, Jake ... View more

Hi, I have a Cisco 2960S stack and I'd like to tune the timers so that packet loss is minimal if a switch fails. To simulate a failed switch I have reloaded it while running a continuous ping to a management address on the stack's SVI: Reply from 192.168.101.246: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=255 Reply from 192.168.101.246: bytes=32 time=2ms TTL=255 Reply from 192.168.101.246: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=255 !! -- This is when I issued the reload command for the master switch only Request timed out. Request timed out. Request timed out. Request timed out. Reply from 192.168.101.2: Destination host unreachable. Reply from 192.168.101.2: Destination host unreachable. Reply from 192.168.101.2: Destination host unreachable. Reply from 192.168.101.2: Destination host unreachable. Reply from 192.168.101.2: Destination host unreachable. Reply from 192.168.101.2: Destination host unreachable. Reply from 192.168.101.2: Destination host unreachable. Reply from 192.168.101.2: Destination host unreachable. Reply from 192.168.101.2: Destination host unreachable. Request timed out. Reply from 192.168.101.246: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=255 Reply from 192.168.101.246: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=255 Reply from 192.168.101.246: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=255 Reply from 192.168.101.246: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=255 The topology used to test this failover is as follows: [Catalyst 2960S - 2 in Stack]====Cross stack Etherchannel=====[Single HP Switch 802.3ad Etherchannel (LACP Active)] I've also tested via this topology: [Catalyst 2960S - 2 in Stack]====Cross stack Etherchannel=====[PAN Firewall with portfast trunk static Etherchannel (Mode on)] As I see the same results when a ping is directed through the single switch (switched), and through the firewall (routed), I'm inclined to think that this is due to the stack failover timers on the Catalyst 2960S. Is it possible to change the stack failover timers (i.e hold down, failover etc), to speed up the failover process? Regards, Jacob ... View more