Oh and obviously the normal š feature lacp ; feature vpc ; feature interface-vlan
On Mon, 26 Nov 2018 at 14:19, Jason Leschnik <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi all, > > With vPC on both pairs, all 4 links between the pairs can be aggregated > into a single port-channel like the one pictured below. Practically you're > going to setup two different vPC domains (vpc domain 1, vpc domain 2 for > example) on the two pairs (11,12) and (13,14). With a port-channel > configuration like the following example: > > Assuming e1/1-2 are the downstream links (between pairs) and e1/10-11 are > the links between vPC peer switches > > *# Setup vPC* > sw11# vpc domain 11 ; peer-keepalive destination <mgmt-ip sw12> ; int > e1/10-11 ; channel-group 1 mode active ; int po1 ; vpc peer-link ; > peer-switch ; peer-gateway > sw12# vcp domain 11 ; peer-keepalive destination <mgmt-ip sw11> ; int > e1/10-11 ; channel-group 1 mode active ; int po1 ; vpc peer-link ; > peer-switch ; peer-gateway > > sw13# vpc domain 13 ; peer-keepalive destination <mgmt-ip sw14> ; int > e1/10-11 ; channel-group 1 mode active ; int po1 ; vpc peer-link ; > peer-switch ; peer-gateway > sw14# vpc domain 13 ; peer-keepalive destination <mgmt-ip sw13> ; int > e1/10-11 ; channel-group 1 mode active ; int po1 ; vpc peer-link ; > peer-switch ; peer-gateway > > ! Peer-switch will allow both vPC peers to propagate the same STP BPDU > information by sharing a vMAC > ! Peer-gateway allows the partner to route on behalf of the other, this > gets around some non-RFC behavior seen in certain NAS vendors products when > using FHRP > ! It's perfectly fine to use mgmt0 interfaces for the peer-keepalive, it's > a stream of UDP packets to src/dst port 3200. This link can go down with no > ill effect on vPC > ! Note conventions for numbering of port-channels and domains is just for > example, use whatever numbering system works for you > > *# Setup the port-channels* > sw11# int e1/1-2 ; channel-group 1314 mode active ; int po1314 ; vpc > sw12# int e1/1-2 ; channel-group 1314 mode active ; int po1314 ; vpc > > sw13# int e1/1-2 ; channel-group 1112 mode active ; int po1112 ; vpc > sw14# int e1/1-2 ; channel-group 1112 mode active ; int po1112 ; vpc > > [image: vpc.png] > > Regards, > Jason. > > On Mon, 26 Nov 2018 at 11:10, Ahad Aboss <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Radeck, >> >> To avoid blocked ports, you will need to configure your upstream links as >> follows; >> >> Built a port-channel from SW13 to SW11/12. >> Build a port-channel from SW14 to SW11/12. >> >> Physically, SW 11 and 12 looks as 2 x Switches but logically, SW 13 and >> 14 treats SW11/12 as a single switch. >> >> I suggest using at least 2 x 10GE ports between SW13 & 14 as SFP's do >> fail from time to time. >> You can use MGM for peer link keep alive or a dedicated link. >> >> You can increase your port-channel capacity as your traffic grows. >> >> Ahad >> >> On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 10:16 AM Radek Tkaczyk <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> Hi Guys, >>> >>> >>> >>> So from the feedback so far is that we should also link SW-13 and SW-14 >>> directly ā updated as below. >>> >>> >>> >>> The primary purpose for this design is to ensure redundancy across >>> switches, and to be able to provide approx. 50 x 10Gbps ports, and 50 x 1 >>> Gbps ports ā this also leaves heaps of room for growth as well. >>> >>> >>> >>> Still looking for someone to go over the config with, so if you are >>> interested (paid gig) please let me know. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Thanks >>> >>> >>> >>> Radek >>> >>> >>> >>> *From:* AusNOG [mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Radek >>> Tkaczyk >>> *Sent:* Sunday, 25 November 2018 4:34 PM >>> *To:* Jacob Taylor <[email protected]> >>> *Cc:* <[email protected]> <[email protected]> >>> *Subject:* Re: [AusNOG] Assistance with Cisco vPC configuration on 4 x >>> Cisco Nexus 3000 switches >>> >>> >>> >>> Hi Jake, >>> >>> >>> >>> Thatās something that I wanted to check if it was needed/recommended. >>> >>> >>> >>> Can certainly put it in if it will help achieve better performance and >>> redundancy >>> >>> Thanks >>> >>> >>> >>> Radek >>> >>> >>> On 25 Nov 2018, at 4:26 pm, Jacob Taylor <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Hi Radek, >>> >>> >>> >>> Not personally familiar with vPC, more so Arista MLAG and Juniper MC-AE. >>> >>> >>> >>> In the diagram there isnāt a peer link between 13 & 14 - is that a >>> mistake in the diagram or the actual design? >>> >>> >>> >>> If you intend to build 2x20G bonds to two standalone nexus switches, >>> thatāll work fine. >>> >>> >>> >>> If you are trying to achieve a 40G bowtie between the two pairs Iām >>> fairly certain that wonāt work (unless Cisco has some special black magic >>> to transport signalling/MAC synchronisation over the bond itself). >>> >>> >>> >>> Cheers, >>> >>> Jake >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On 25 Nov 2018, at 15:04, Radek Tkaczyk <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Hi Guys, >>> >>> >>> >>> I have a need to configure vPC on 4 x Cisco Nexus 3000 switches at one >>> of our data centres ā a design that we will replicate to other data centres >>> as well. >>> >>> >>> >>> I think I have the config down pat, but Iād like someone with another >>> pair of eyes to go over it with me to ensure itās 100% correct. >>> >>> >>> >>> Is there anyone who can give me a hand here with this configuration, >>> happy to pay for someoneās time to go over it to ensure we are doing this >>> correctly. >>> >>> >>> >>> The Physical setup that Iām looking for: >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> <image001.png> >>> >>> >>> >>> Thanks >>> >>> >>> >>> Radek >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> AusNOG mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> AusNOG mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> AusNOG mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog >> >
_______________________________________________ AusNOG mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
