But Dave, can we use a 2nd SUP III? I was under the inpression that
Cisco-Cat doesnt allow a 2nd SUP III. It disables the blade if inserted.
Cisco_Maniac
""MADMAN"" wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> That was a common approach back in the heydays of the 5500s!! No
>
So is it still better to have second Super III with same config and
connection, on each of the two switches, in order to address SPF?
Thanks
Message Posted at:
http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=49559&t=49530
--
FAQ, list archives, and
Just make the port cost on one of your Gig ports higher than the default.
Then when spanning tree runs, it will block one of the Gig ports (the one
with the higher cost) and utilize the other. If the Gig port that you're
using has a problem or goes down, then spanning tree will rearrange and fai
That was a common approach back in the heydays of the 5500s!! No
spanning issues unless you disable spanning ;)
Dave
Mohsin Hussain wrote:
>
> I have two Cat5505 with Supervisor III with two GIGBIT uplinks on each
> switch. The Super IIIs do not support GIG EtherChannel.
>
> In order to add
I have two Cat5505 with Supervisor III with two GIGBIT uplinks on each
switch. The Super IIIs do not support GIG EtherChannel.
In order to address single point of failure between these switches, chould I
add another Super III on each switch and connect all the ports. Will this
will create spannin
5 matches
Mail list logo
