What's the 'show vlan' look like from the switch?
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Sunday, July 11, 2010 7:23 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: CCIE_RS Digest, Vol 54, Issue 36
Send CCIE_RS mailing list submissions to
[email protected]
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://onlinestudylist.com/mailman/listinfo/ccie_rs
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
[email protected]
You can reach the person managing the list at
[email protected]
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of CCIE_RS digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: OT: Cisco Catalyst 3750-X series?? (Mark Beynon)
2. Baffled dot1q trunk (Bodnar, Edward)
3. Re: Baffled dot1q trunk (Marko Milivojevic)
4. Re: Baffled dot1q trunk (Bodnar, Edward)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:17:29 +0100
From: Mark Beynon <[email protected]>
To: Matt Hill <[email protected]>
Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [OSL | CCIE_RS] OT: Cisco Catalyst 3750-X series??
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed;
delsp=yes
I may have missed something here, so shoot me if I an covering old
ground. Each 3750x has two power slots, so with the correct wattage
power supply it is self sufficient with just one power supply in each,
leaving you a spare slot in each switch. Regardless off the number of
switches in your stackwise stack, let's say full nine, each of your 3
power stacks (3 stacks each with three switches). on s simplistic
view, the least you would go for would be to put an extra power supply
in one switch in each power stack. That way you have n+1 and any
switch or any power supply can fail. Add more in each stack and add
more resillience.
It gets more complicated because if your available power budget is way
above what you use, then you don't defo need the extra power supply,
and still power the switch with the faulty power supply. Would love to
hear bout some real world feed back.
RE: 6513, the 6513E isn't to long away and that solves the Fabric
issue! but no news on a hard release date
Sent from my iPhone
On 10 Jul 2010, at 08:47, Matt Hill <[email protected]> wrote:
> It might not be very exciting having redundant power, but the
> fireworks in the CEO/HR/IT office is when you need to explain why they
> have a site down!
>
> Also - whoever was after the 6513 - be careful as only half your slots
> are dual fabric.
>
> PS this has been my favourite thread on here for a while ;)
>
> Cheers,
> Matt
>
> CCIE #22386
> CCSI #31207
>
> On 10 July 2010 15:21, Chadwick L. Allison <[email protected]
> > wrote:
>> This is a long thread but some times you have to bite the bullet
>> and spend
>> money on things that just aren't very exciting ie. redundant
>> power! I've
>> been there done that. About the most exciting part was plugging in
>> the
>> management cable! WAHOOOO!
>>
>> --------------------------------------------------
>> From: "Di Bias, Steve" <[email protected]>
>> Sent: Friday, July 09, 2010 11:15 PM
>> To: "Matt Hill" <[email protected]>
>> Cc: <[email protected]>
>> Subject: Re: [OSL | CCIE_RS] OT: Cisco Catalyst 3750-X series??
>>
>>> The only way to power all 9 at the same time requires an XPS be
>>> installed,
>>> otherwise the maximum you can have is four. Either way though you
>>> are right
>>> and I agree with you 100%! The whole purpose of this technology is
>>> for
>>> redundancy, if you choose to have two power supplies in the
>>> master and no
>>> power supplies in the others you will be in a world of hurt when
>>> you lose a
>>> power supply, and probably lose most of your stack!
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Matt Hill [mailto:[email protected]]
>>> Sent: Friday, July 09, 2010 4:05 PM
>>> To: Di Bias, Steve
>>> Cc: Mark Beynon; Tyson Scott; [email protected]
>>> Subject: Re: [OSL | CCIE_RS] OT: Cisco Catalyst 3750-X series??
>>>
>>> I am not familiar with the power stacking but you can bet your
>>> arse that
>>> you should have a "PS required +1" number ob PSUs in the stack.
>>> Your 9
>>> switches may be able run off three PSUs but if one blows up you
>>> all of a
>>> sudden have a down stack. I'd be adding the extra one all the
>>> time. Unless
>>> I have this completely wrong ;)
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Matt
>>>
>>> CCIE #22386
>>> CCSI #31207
>>>
>>>
>>> On 10 July 2010 08:34, Di Bias, Steve <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Right so if you had 9 switches in your stack and decided to utilize
>>>> StackPower as well you would end up with 3 StackPower stacks
>>>> within you
>>>> StackWise stack.
>>>>
>>>> Phew, that's a lot of stacks in this email!
>>>>
>>>> Steve Di Bias
>>>> Network Engineer - Information Systems Valley Health System - Las
>>>> Vegas Office - 702- 369-7594 Cell - 702-241-1801
>>>> [email protected]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Mark Beynon [mailto:[email protected]]
>>>> Sent: Friday, July 09, 2010 3:10 PM
>>>> To: Di Bias, Steve
>>>> Cc: Matt Hill; Tyson Scott; [email protected]
>>>> Subject: Re: [OSL | CCIE_RS] OT: Cisco Catalyst 3750-X series??
>>>>
>>>> True, but the stack wise and stack power are independant, so you
>>>> could
>>>> still stack all 9 switches with stack wise whilst powering them as
>>>> three stacks.
>>>>
>>>> Or atleast that is what we are told.
>>>>
>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>>
>>>> On 8 Jul 2010, at 15:53, "Di Bias, Steve" <[email protected]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> One other caveat is that StackPower supports up to four switches
>>>>> only, whereas the StackWise technology supports up to nine devices
>>>>> per stack. So, there could be scenarios where you could have two
>>>>> StackPower stacks within the same StackWise group of switches,
>>>>> assuming you have more than 4 in an IDF.
>>>>>
>>>>> Luckily for me most of the IDF's have between 2 and 3 48 port
>>>>> switches, but good info incase others are considering the x series
>>>>>
>>>>> Steve Di Bias
>>>>> Network Engineer - Information Systems
>>>>> Valley Health System - Las Vegas
>>>>> Office - 702- 369-7594
>>>>> Cell - 702-241-1801
>>>>> [email protected]
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: Matt Hill [mailto:[email protected]]
>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, July 07, 2010 4:18 PM
>>>>> To: Tyson Scott
>>>>> Cc: Di Bias, Steve; Bill; [email protected]
>>>>> Subject: Re: [OSL | CCIE_RS] OT: Cisco Catalyst 3750-X series??
>>>>>
>>>>> I agree with the 3750X as it appears "on paper".
>>>>>
>>>>> As always with a v1.0 Caveat Emptor... Of course this wont matter
>>>>> when in 3 months when the IOS gets its first .1 release :)
>>>>>
>>>>> If it is power redundancy you are after then your 4500s
>>>>> certainly give
>>>>> you that. Then again you say you are using 3 x switches in each
>>>>> stack. That means you would have a whole 4506 taking up all
>>>>> those RU
>>>>> (with two empty slots and no no failed supervisor redundancy) when
>>>>> your 3x3750X will be taking up far less real estate! With
>>>>> "supervisor" (stack master) redundancy too...
>>>>>
>>>>> My cursory pros & cons list leans me towards 3750X.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>> Matt
>>>>>
>>>>> CCIE #22386
>>>>> CCSI #31207
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 8 July 2010 07:09, Tyson Scott <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Fixed Chassis is always cheaper and the specs on the 3750X
>>>>>> switches
>>>>>> is very
>>>>>> good.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Tyson Scott - CCIE #13513 R&S, Security, and SP
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Managing Partner / Sr. Instructor - IPexpert, Inc.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mailto: [email protected]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Telephone: +1.810.326.1444, ext. 208
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Live Assistance, Please visit: www.ipexpert.com/chat
>>>>>>
>>>>>> eFax: +1.810.454.0130
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> IPexpert is a premier provider of Self-Study Workbooks, Video on
>>>>>> Demand,
>>>>>> Audio Tools, Online Hardware Rental and Classroom Training for
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> Cisco
>>>>>> CCIE (R&S, Voice, Security & Service Provider) certification(s)
>>>>>> with
>>>>>> training locations throughout the United States, Europe, South
>>>>>> Asia
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> Australia. Be sure to visit our online communities at
>>>>>> www.ipexpert.com/communities and our public website at
www.ipexpert.com
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> From: [email protected]
>>>>>> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Di
>>>>>> Bias,
>>>>>> Steve
>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, July 07, 2010 5:04 PM
>>>>>> To: Bill; [email protected]
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [OSL | CCIE_RS] OT: Cisco Catalyst 3750-X series??
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> From what I can tell it supports IEEE 802.3af PoE+. Depending
>>>>>> upon
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> wattage of the power supplies you buy you can actually do up to
>>>>>> 30W
>>>>>> of power
>>>>>> per port!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Stev
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ________________________________
>>>>>>
>>>>>> From: Bill [mailto:[email protected]]
>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, July 07, 2010 1:53 PM
>>>>>> To: Di Bias, Steve; [email protected]
>>>>>> Subject: RE: [OSL | CCIE_RS] OT: Cisco Catalyst 3750-X series??
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Do the new 3750-X support Enhanced POE for the new devices? That
>>>>>> was a key
>>>>>> feature that the 4500's supported.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ________________________________
>>>>>>
>>>>>> From: [email protected]
>>>>>> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Di
>>>>>> Bias,
>>>>>> Steve
>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, July 07, 2010 3:46 PM
>>>>>> To: [email protected]
>>>>>> Subject: [OSL | CCIE_RS] OT: Cisco Catalyst 3750-X series??
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hey everyone,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I was considering replacing some of our 3750 stacks with 4506-E's
>>>>>> but our
>>>>>> Cisco rep suggested we take a look at the *new* 3750-X series
>>>>>> instead. I'm
>>>>>> really interested in the new StackPower capabilities which gives
>>>>>> you power
>>>>>> redundancy within the stack. Also the power supplies are modular
>>>>>> with two
>>>>>> slots on each chassis. The uplink modules are also modular
>>>>>> allowing
>>>>>> for 2
>>>>>> 10gbE or 4 10GbE uplink ports.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Has anyone seen these things in action yet? Any recommendations
>>>>>> as to
>>>>>> staying with the 3750-X series or moving to a single 4506 chassis
>>>>>> for IDF's
>>>>>> that have 3 or more switches in the stack? Thanks in advance!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thank you,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Steve Di Bias
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Network Engineer
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> UHS Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any
>>>>>> attachments,
>>>>>> is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain
>>>>>> confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review,
>>>>>> use,
>>>>>> disclosure or distribution of this information is prohibited, and
>>>>>> may be
>>>>>> punishable by law. If this was sent to you in error, please
>>>>>> notify
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original
>>>>>> message.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> UHS Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any
>>>>>> attachments,
>>>>>> is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain
>>>>>> confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review,
>>>>>> use,
>>>>>> disclosure or distribution of this information is prohibited, and
>>>>>> may be
>>>>>> punishable by law. If this was sent to you in error, please
>>>>>> notify
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original
>>>>>> message.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab
>>>>>> training,
>>>>>> please
>>>>>> visit www.ipexpert.com
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> UHS Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any
>>>>> attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient (s) and
>>>>> may contain confidential and privileged information. Any
>>>>> unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution of this
>>>>> information is prohibited. If this was sent to you in error,
>>>>> please
>>>>> notify the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the
>>>>> original message.
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab training,
>>>>> please visit www.ipexpert.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> UHS Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any
>>>> attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient (s)
>>>> and may
>>>> contain confidential and privileged information. Any
>>>> unauthorized review,
>>>> use, disclosure or distribution of this information is
>>>> prohibited. If this
>>>> was sent to you in error, please notify the sender by reply e-
>>>> mail and
>>>> destroy all copies of the original message.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> UHS Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any
>>> attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient (s) and
>>> may
>>> contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized
>>> review,
>>> use, disclosure or distribution of this information is
>>> prohibited. If this
>>> was sent to you in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail
>>> and
>>> destroy all copies of the original message.
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab training,
>>> please
>>> visit www.ipexpert.com
>>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab training,
> please visit www.ipexpert.com
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 19:43:02 -0500
From: "Bodnar, Edward" <[email protected]>
To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Subject: [OSL | CCIE_RS] Baffled dot1q trunk
Message-ID:
<87ed2f20c514524781004420d30188cd447e403...@usea-exch8.na.uis.unisys.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
I am so baffled by this one.
I have a router that is trunked to a switch vlans 33 and 66 are running over
it. I have another router connected to the same switch ( access port ) in
vlan 33. I can not ping..... I try to ping from router to router and I
just cant. If I put vlan 33 in as the "native vlan" vlan 33 works it works
but only vlan 33. If I switch them I 66 works but not 33.
Configs.
Router A
Int fa0/0
No ip add
Int fa0/0.33
Encap dot 33
Ip add 10.5.4.5 255.255.255.0
Int fa0/0.66
Encap dot 66
Ip add 10.10.4.5 255.255.255.0
Router B
Int fa0/0
ip add 10.10.4.6 255.255.255.0
SW 1
Int fa0/2
Sw mode trunk
Sw trunk encap dot
Int fa0/5
Sw mode access
Sw access vlan 66
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </archives/ccie_rs/attachments/20100711/8947e672/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2010 01:48:26 +0000
From: Marko Milivojevic <[email protected]>
To: "Bodnar, Edward" <[email protected]>
Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [OSL | CCIE_RS] Baffled dot1q trunk
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
What devices are these?
--
Marko Milivojevic - CCIE #18427
Senior Technical Instructor - IPexpert
Mailto: [email protected]
Telephone: +1.810.326.1444
Fax: +1.810.454.0130
Community: http://www.ipexpert.com/communities
:: Sent from my phone. Apologies for errors and brevity. ::
On Jul 12, 2010, at 0:43, "Bodnar, Edward" <[email protected]> wrote:
> I am so baffled by this one.
>
>
>
> I have a router that is trunked to a switch vlans 33 and 66 are running
over it. I have another router connected to the same switch ( access port )
in vlan 33. I can not ping?.. I try to ping from router to router and I
just cant. If I put vlan 33 in as the ?native vlan? vlan 33 works it works
but only vlan 33. If I switch them I 66 works but not 33.
>
>
>
>
>
> Configs.
>
>
>
> Router A
>
> Int fa0/0
>
> No ip add
>
> Int fa0/0.33
>
> Encap dot 33
>
> Ip add 10.5.4.5 255.255.255.0
>
> Int fa0/0.66
>
> Encap dot 66
>
> Ip add 10.10.4.5 255.255.255.0
>
>
>
>
>
> Router B
>
> Int fa0/0
>
> ip add 10.10.4.6 255.255.255.0
>
>
>
>
>
> SW 1
>
> Int fa0/2
>
> Sw mode trunk
>
> Sw trunk encap dot
>
>
>
> Int fa0/5
>
> Sw mode access
>
> Sw access vlan 66
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab training, please
visit www.ipexpert.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </archives/ccie_rs/attachments/20100712/4c3d5d86/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:23:07 -0500
From: "Bodnar, Edward" <[email protected]>
To: 'Marko Milivojevic' <[email protected]>
Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [OSL | CCIE_RS] Baffled dot1q trunk
Message-ID:
<87ed2f20c514524781004420d30188cd447e403...@usea-exch8.na.uis.unisys.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
550 switch and a 3725 router ( GNS3 )
From: Marko Milivojevic [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Sunday, July 11, 2010 9:48 PM
To: Bodnar, Edward
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [OSL | CCIE_RS] Baffled dot1q trunk
What devices are these?
--
Marko Milivojevic - CCIE #18427
Senior Technical Instructor - IPexpert
Mailto: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
Telephone: +1.810.326.1444
Fax: +1.810.454.0130
Community: http://www.ipexpert.com/communities
:: Sent from my phone. Apologies for errors and brevity. ::
On Jul 12, 2010, at 0:43, "Bodnar, Edward"
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
I am so baffled by this one.
I have a router that is trunked to a switch vlans 33 and 66 are running over
it. I have another router connected to the same switch ( access port ) in
vlan 33. I can not ping?.. I try to ping from router to router and I just
cant. If I put vlan 33 in as the ?native vlan? vlan 33 works it works but
only vlan 33. If I switch them I 66 works but not 33.
Configs.
Router A
Int fa0/0
No ip add
Int fa0/0.33
Encap dot 33
Ip add 10.5.4.5 255.255.255.0
Int fa0/0.66
Encap dot 66
Ip add 10.10.4.5 255.255.255.0
Router B
Int fa0/0
ip add 10.10.4.6 255.255.255.0
SW 1
Int fa0/2
Sw mode trunk
Sw trunk encap dot
Int fa0/5
Sw mode access
Sw access vlan 66
_______________________________________________
For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab training, please
visit www.ipexpert.com<http://www.ipexpert.com>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </archives/ccie_rs/attachments/20100711/bd4186af/attachment.html>
End of CCIE_RS Digest, Vol 54, Issue 36
***************************************
_______________________________________________
For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab training, please visit
www.ipexpert.com
