----- Original Message -----
From: "scott owens" <scottowen...@gmail.com>
To: <cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net>
Sent: Friday, April 30, 2010 5:35 PM
Subject: [c-nsp] nexus 5xx vpc peer keepalives
Tony,
Read this as well ( it talks about NOT using the mgmt0 for peer keep
alives
) - we are trying this too
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/switches/datacenter/nexus5000/sw/layer2/Cisco_Nexus_5000_Series_NX-OS__chapter8.html
After figure 6, step 3 there is this text ;
Note
VLAN 900 must not be trunked across the vPC peer-link because it carries
the vPC
peer-keepalive messages. There must be an alternative path between
switches NX-5000-1 and
NX-5000-2 for the vPC peer-keepalive messages.
The problem we are encountering is that if we drop the peer vlan from
the 5k to 5k link then we get weird errors as well.
I will STRONGLY suggest that you test any possible failure scenario that
you
can think of.
Are you using the 5Ks/ FEXs in dual homed fashion ?
I have an open case with Cisco on the use of
I didn't respond to all of your questions comments.
We never put the keepalive vlan across the peer link. It's always in its
own VRF in whatever fashion/implementation on the 5k and 7k.
If you have an OOB network that requires the 5k mgmt0 ports to be used
there, burn one of 1-8 on a 5010 or one of 1-16 on a 5020 as a gig port and
do another VRF specially for the peer link. Done.
Yes, most of our customers are dual connected.
We've done a lot of testing. But, we have not done what you have. It's not
the recommended practice, it's not the correct design and no one around
Cisco supports it. So, we don't implement that way.
I know the docs (all 10000 of them) may seem confusing and contradictory.
But, if you follow above you shouldn't have any issues.
tv
_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
