Hi Drew, please see inline below:
At 07:50 AM 2/7/2014 Friday, Drew Weaver remarked:
Greetings,
We are purchasing two Nexus 3000 switches to aggregate some 48 port
1G switches and plan on using vPC for redundancy.
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/prod/collateral/switches/ps9441/ps11541/white_paper_c11-685753.html
When I was reading the vPC whitepaper (referenced above) for the
Nexus 3000 it mentions two different types of vPC link:
#1 The vPC peer keepalive link (whitepaper suggests that this
traffic can run over the mgmt. interface)
#2 The vPC peer link (needs to be at least two 10G ports in a port channel)
My questions are
What happens to the traffic if the vPC peer keep alive
communication fails between the two vPC members?
Nothing. You are of course alerted to that fact, but loss of
bidirectional PKA communication does not impact data plane forwarding.
Depending on the answer to the question above, is it
possible to make the vPC peer keepalive link redundant?
You can, yes, it can be a port-channel for example.
Can you add more members to the vPC peer link port channel
without disrupting traffic flow?
There is potential for some disruption when you add/remove links from
a port-channel, as hash buckets are shuffled around.
Has anyone run into any unexpected caveats or amusing issues
with vPC that they would like to share?
I yield the floor... ;)
Hope that helps,
Tim
Thanks and happy Friday!
-Drew
___
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/
Tim Stevenson, tstev...@cisco.com
Routing & Switching CCIE #5561
Distinguished Technical Marketing Engineer, Cisco Nexus 7000
Cisco - http://www.cisco.com
IP Phone: 408-526-6759
The contents of this message may be *Cisco Confidential*
and are intended for the specified recipients only.
___
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/
