From: Chuck Church (cchurch@xxxxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Fri Jul 26 2002 - 09:39:34 GMT-3
Thanks for the info. I was intending on using the HA on them , so I'm going
with what's supported. Was what you saw while running IOS or CatOS on the
switch?
Chuck Church
CCIE #8776, MCNE, MCSE
Sr. Network Engineer
Magnacom Technologies
140 N. Rt. 303
Valley Cottage, NY 10989
845-267-4000
-----Original Message-----
From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com]On Behalf Of
Joseph Ezerski
Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2002 7:33 PM
To: 'Anthony Pace'; 'Colin Barber'; ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: RE: MSFC2 redundancy
Tony and Chuck:
I have tried this with the 6509 and a SUP-1 MSFC1 or 2 combo and got it to
synch. It won't specifically hurt the switch or blow it up or render it non
functional, but it does sometime wreak havoc on the PFCs, which are
programmed, in part, by the MSFC. In most cases, the hardware mismatch is a
livable, although not Cisco supported, config. HOWEVER, as soon as you
start enabling HA on your switch, you will see issues. Trust me, I have
lived that nightmare. Now, all of our 6509s have like hardware in both
slots. Just sharing the experience.
-Joe
TP- Best wishes on your next attempt...
-----Original Message-----
From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com]On Behalf Of
Anthony Pace
Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2002 11:45 AM
To: Colin Barber; 'ccielab@groupstudy.com'
Subject: RE: MSFC2 redundancy
I have tried this with miss-matched supervisors and they have to be
identical for the SUPERVISOR SYCRONIZATION to occur. Identical
including the existance or non-existatnce of NFFC. If they are not only
one comes on line meaning no extra MSSF either. I had a buch of them
and tried several combos. THis was my experience.
Anthony PACe
On Thu, 25 Jul 2002 08:48:06 +0100, "Colin Barber"
<Colin.Barber@telewest.co.uk> said:
> Cisco have always stated that if using dual supervisors they must be
> identical (sup version, PFC and MSFC). Anything else is un-supported. I
> don't know if will work or not, I haven't tried, but it wouldn't damage
the
> sup.
>
> Remember that you can purchase a redundant supervisor with MSFC for half
> price. It is not licensed to use as a primary so you cannot order one and
a
> blank chassis and then move it over (without purchasing the upgrade
license)
> but it does save you a large sum of money. The part numbers are
> WS-X6K-S1A-MSFC2/2 and WS-X6K-S2-MSFC2/2.
>
> Colin
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chuck Church [mailto:cchurch@MAGNACOM.com]
> Sent: 25 July 2002 02:01
> To: 'ccielab@groupstudy.com'
> Subject: OT: MSFC2 redundancy
>
>
> Anyone,
>
> Sorry for the OT, but couldn't find a definitive answer on CCO.
> I've got a client who purchased two 6509 switches, one with redundant
sup2's
> and the other with redundant sup2's with MSFC2's. This was the config
> recommended by our Cisco salesperson. Redundant MSFC2's in each switch
were
> too pricey. Anyway, my question is can I put a sup2/MSFC2 in each
switch's
> slot one, with the non-MSFC2 in each slot 2? Cisco was intending both
> MSFC2's in the same switch, but if I lose that switch totally, I've lost
all
> inter-VLAN routing. The two switches will be tied together with multiple
> (channeled) gig trunks. I was just going to go ahead and try it, but not
at
> the risk of damaging a supervisor. Does anyone know if this is supported?
>
> Thanks in advance,
>
> Chuck Church
> CCIE #8776, MCNE, MCSE
> Sr. Network Engineer
> Magnacom Technologies
> 140 N. Rt. 303
> Valley Cottage, NY 10989
> 845-267-4000
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Sep 07 2002 - 19:36:45 GMT-3