Tony
What do you think about convert the boxes to Native IOS ?
I personally like this mode , since the switch runs L2/L3 on same software .
Did HSRP with them , working fine until now . Besides , I think it is
easier to customer to maintain by himself, since he doesn't need to care
about 4 MSFCs running HSRP , 4 OSPF equal-cost paths , etc .
Regards ,
Henrique Terada
CCIE # 7460
At 10:56 12/08/2001 -0400, Tony Medeiros wrote:
>Found my answer,
>
>From:
>http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/lan/cat6000/sft_6_1/configgd
>/redund.htm#43570
>
>Quote:
>"Layer 2 redundancy for the supervisor engines (one active and one in
>standby)-If the active supervisor engine fails (the MSFC installed on it
>will also fail), both Layer 2 and Layer 3 functions roll over to the
>redundant supervisor engine and MSFC combination."
>
>So the way I see it:
>For HSRP redundency for the same vlan. The standby MSFC Should be the the
>MSFC in the redundent supervisor. This will utilize all the replicated MLS
>information kept in the PFC's (or CEF information on the PFC2) This will be
>a faster, cleaner failover than having the standby HSRP router in the other
>chassis in the event of a supervisor failover. It will also keep the Layer
>2 path optimal. If the whole box fails then that is a different story. The
>"listening" HSRP peers will take a little longer to come up as well as build
>out their MLS/CEF cache.
>
>Cool, and thanks to Jeff for the pointer.
>
>Tony M.
>#6172
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Tony Medeiros"
>To:
>Sent: Saturday, August 11, 2001 1:34 AM
>Subject: HSRP with 4 MSFC's....Best practice [7:15734]
>
>
> > I have a question that really only experience will answer.
> >
> > I have a customer with a two 6509 core with redundant Sup's and MSFC's in
> > each
> > box ( a little over kill if you ask me) The setup is a typical one with
> > access layer switch's uplinked to each core boxes with the typical L2
load
> > balancing going on by setting up the root bridges appropriately on the
>core
> > boxes. The active HSRP MSFC's correspond with the root bridges. Pretty
> > vanilla setup. A failure of a whole core box will have the layer 2 STP
and
> > layer 3 HSRP's fail over the other core box. They are running a hybrid
>setup
> > with IOS and CAT OS. So far so good.
> >
> > The redundant MSFC's in each box are set up as the lowest priority's so
>they
> > are just in listening mode.
> >
> > My question is: In the case of a primary Sup failure in one of the boxes
>and
> > the secondary takes over. Will the associated primary MSFC fail as well?
>I
> > have never tested this and this is a production network so I obviously
>can't
> > test it there. If the associated MSFC fails with the sup, It make sense
>to
> > me to make the MSFC in the redundant sup the standby one so the layer 2
>path
> > stays optimal and doesn't have to pass over the inter core trunk to hit
>the
> > router in the other core switch. I know this won't be optimal if the
>whole
> > box fails because it takes slightly longer for a listening HSRP peer to
> > transit to active than it does a standby peer to transit to active. I
>could
> > speed things up be lowering the HSRP hello timers some. If the MSFC
stays
> > alive after a sup failure then I think I'll just leave things alone.
> >
> > Has anybody any experience in this type of setup? I didn't build this
> > network
> > but I am tasked to fix a bunch of screwups. I know this would be a moot
> > point
> > if they were running native IOS cus the 2 MSFC's really act as one.
> >
> > Any experience or comments are very much welcome !!!! I haven't posted
a
> > question in quite a while, but it feels good !! I'll be scanning CCO too
>in
> > the meantime.
> >
> > Thanks in advance
> > Tony M.
> > #6172
Message Posted at:
http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=16617&t=15734
--------------------------------------------------
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
