Ah very interesting. I didn’t think of that. The switches all have what ever they were shipped and manufactured with. 13.2X51 but not sure if the sub version matches. I will give that a look and match them up if they aren’t a matching set.
> On Aug 17, 2015, at 2:29 PM, Kevin Wormington <kw...@sofnet.com> wrote: > > Are these units all running the same version of JunOS? If the lab units have > a new version or vice-versa it could spell trouble. I ran into a similar > issue with 4300's and zeroing them and upgrading JunOS to the latest > recommend version with no VCP modules/cables installed and then forming the > chassis one unit at a time did the trick. > > Kevin > On 08/17/2015 01:19 PM, Scott Granados wrote: >> So let me be a bit more clear. >> >> I have an existing lab chassis. It’s just something we use to test on etc. >> We received 2 more decommissioned 4300 members from the field to add to the >> stack. Right now it’s a stack of 2 and I’d like to make this 4. The >> existing 2 member chassis boots fine, all the VCP ports show adjacency and >> all is good in the hood.:) >> When I take the 3rd member whether I zeroize the new member to join it >> restarts but a link is never formed with the VCP ports. I’m using the built >> in 40G ports and juniper cables that I obtained from Juniper for the back >> plain wiring on the stack. No matter what I try I can’t get physical link >> between the two existing member chassis and one of my proposed repurposed >> members or member 3 in this case. (line card roll) >> >> I’m leaning towards hardware problem because I can’t get link no matter what >> I attach to the new switches VCP port but the two in the original functional >> chassis form adjacencies on all 4 cables. So it’s adding the new to an >> existing that’s the problem. Could be process and a very real possibility >> it’s the guy behind the keyboard writing this that’s the problem but not >> getting physical link was pointing me at hardware problems. I just wanted >> to make sure I cleaned out the previous configs from the proposed new member >> well enough to not cause it to fail to join. >> >> Does that make a bit more sense? >> >> Thanks for you and everyone else responses as well. It’s very much >> appreciated. >> >> Scott >> >> >> On Aug 17, 2015, at 1:59 PM, Levi Pederson >> <levipeder...@mankatonetworks.net<mailto:levipeder...@mankatonetworks.net>> >> wrote: >> >> Scott, >> >> I was under the assumption you wanted to zerorize and remove a unit from a >> Virtual Chassis. Hence the use of system zeorize. >> >> If you wanted to completely erase and re-setup a new VC with old members of >> a previous that is a different story. >> >> I think you issue might be process related. >> >> I would erase and and pre-setup (partially) the first switch in the NEW VC >> with no VC cables attached. >> >> Then connect the VC cables and power on the next member (previously >> zeroized). >> >> That should bring up the VC between the two devices. >> >> The other option would be to statically assign the VC nodes using the serial >> numbers. >> >> Thank you, >> >> >> >> >> Levi Pederson >> Mankato Networks LLC >> cell | 612.481.0769 >> work | 612.787.7392 >> levipeder...@mankatonetworks.net<mailto:levipeder...@mankatonetworks.net> >> [http://www.mankatonetworks.com/images/mn_logo_email.png] >> >> On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 12:33 PM, Scott Granados >> <sc...@granados-llc.net<mailto:sc...@granados-llc.net>> wrote: >> Hi Ross, I had tried this but still no link. I believe I have a hardware >> problem at work causing the vc ports not to link. Zeroize seemed to do the >> trick but with out connectivity I’m Dead in the water. Time to RMA I think. >> >> Thanks >> Scott >> >>> On Aug 17, 2015, at 1:20 PM, Ross Halliday >>> <ross.halli...@wtccommunications.ca<mailto:ross.halli...@wtccommunications.ca>> >>> wrote: >>> >>> Since you want to nuke the config anyway, break the switch out of the VC >>> and use >>> >>> request system zeroize >>> >>> You may want to assign the soon-to-be-former member an RE role, if it's not >>> an automatically elected cluster, just to make things a little easier. >>> >>> Cheers >>> Ross >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: juniper-nsp >>> [mailto:juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net<mailto:juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net>] >>> On Behalf Of Scott Granados >>> Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2015 9:23 PM >>> To: juniper-nsp >>> Subject: [j-nsp] Breaking an EX cluster? >>> >>> Hi, >>> Have some EX 4300s that I want to break apart and start like they were >>> factory new and reboot. I know about the factory default button on the >>> front and the configuration option but no matter how I apply that I still >>> have the node boot thinking it’s a member of the previous chassis. How do >>> I delete it’s membership when it’s active / a stand alone node? >>> >>> Any pointers are most appreciated. >>> >>> Thank you >>> Scott >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> juniper-nsp mailing list >>> juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net<mailto:juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net> >>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp >> >> _______________________________________________ >> juniper-nsp mailing list >> juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net<mailto:juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net> >> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net >> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp >> > _______________________________________________ > juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp _______________________________________________ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
