Some good and bad news. Can't believe they jumped from the lag. 

Adam Baack
Sent from my iPhone

On Dec 28, 2012, at 12:09 PM, "John Kaftan" <[email protected]> wrote:

> We had the same problem going between our S4 and our 6509.  We moved to RST 
> on the 6509 (spanning-tree mode rapid-pvst)  It was painless and is probably 
> a good choice so the 6509 was doing RST PVST and the Enterasys stuff was just 
> doing RST.  They seemed to be working well. I would log into the Enterasys 
> switches and they would recognize the 6509 as the root bridge etc.
> 
> Do you have Netsight?  There is a flex view that can help you determine if 
> you are getting lots of topology changes.  Having lots of topology changes 
> when your network is stable otherwise is a bad thing.  It takes up resources 
> and you will have performance problems.  With the flex view you can see the 
> number of topology changes and when the last topology change took place.  If 
> the number goes up rapidly and the time since the last change is always in 
> minutes or seconds you have a problem.  GTAC should be able to help you with 
> that.
> 
> As for the LAGs my first question is what is your long term plan?  Are you 
> going with an Enterasys core as well.  If so skip the LAGs if you can.  We 
> tried for over a week and could not get a LAG stable between the 6509 and the 
> S4.  We kept getting the same error that you are.  We tried filtering BPDUs 
> on the Cisco because it seemed it was getting confused by the BPDUs coming 
> accross the LAG.  That helped for awhile but then after a couple of days the 
> LAG went down again with err-disable on the Cisco side.
> 
> Eventually we just bailed since the LAG was used for all traffic between our 
> users and the server farm we couldn't have it failing. We have been watching 
> the utilization and it is staying under 1 Gb so that will have to hold us 
> until we can get the 6509 out of there for good.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 10:00 AM, Baack, Adam <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Disclaimer: We are mostly server guys here and know enough switching to be 
>> dangerous.  We know very little about spanning tree, etc.
>> 
>> We're implementing our phase 1 of our Enterasys replacement and have been 
>> installing B5 stacks in all of our headquarter IDFs.  They are connecting 
>> back to a Cisco 6509 (Sup 2).
>> 
>> We just started having problems where the 6509 would err-disable the LACP 
>> lag between the 6509 and the IDFs.  The lag is set for trunking.  In the 
>> terminal of the 6509 it shows channel mismatch error.  We spoke with GTAC 
>> and they said something about the B5 stacks not participating in spanning 
>> tree and the 6509 doesn't know what to do so it disables it.
>> 
>> Also, some of our IDFs have another Cisco switch farther down... example:  
>> 6509 --> B5 Stack --> Cisco 3750.  The 3750 is also trunking.  These setups 
>> seem to be the ones with problems.
>> 
>> GTAC suggested possibly moving from PVST to RSTP so all of our spanning-tree 
>> is the same.  Unfortunately I'm not exactly sure how we would do that or if 
>> that's the solution for us.
>> 
>> Anyone have experience with this type of setup and did you have problems?
>> 
>> Thanks.
>> 
>> Adam Baack
>> Network Administrator
>> Lee County Sheriff's Office
>> 
>> 
>> ***IMPORTANT MESSAGE***
>> This message is intended for the use of the person or entity to
>> whom it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged
>> and confidential, the disclosure of which is governed by applicable
>> law. If the reader of this email is not the intended recipient or
>> the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended
>> recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination,
>> distribution or copying of this information is STRICTLY PROHIBITED.
>> If you have received this email by error, please notify us
>> immediately and destroy the related message. This footnote also
>> confirms that this email message has been swept for the presence of
>> computer viruses, worms, hostile scripts and other email-borne
>> network threats. PLEASE NOTE: Florida has a very broad public
>> records law. Most written communications to or from government
>> officials are public records available to the public and media upon
>> request. Your email communications may be subject to public
>> disclosure per Sec. 119 F.S.
>> 
>> ---
>> To unsubscribe from enterasys, send email to [email protected] with the body: 
>> unsubscribe enterasys [email protected]
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> John Kaftan
> IT Infrastructure Manager
> Utica College
> 
> --To unsubscribe from enterasys, send email to [email protected] with the 
> body: unsubscribe enterasys [email protected]

---
To unsubscribe from enterasys, send email to [email protected] with the body: 
unsubscribe enterasys [email protected]

Reply via email to