I indeed can't imagine that the N2k support the vPC feature yet. You can do teaming on the server though. Teaming on servers is usually just using 1 interface and the second as a backup. The server really has to support balancing, like ESX (not by default as well).
Then again. AFAIK it's not possible to configure a vPC on 2 N2k's.
-- Regards, Rick Mur CCIE2 #21946 (R&S / Service Provider) Sr. Support Engineer IPexpert, Inc. URL: http://www.IPexpert.com On 28 feb 2010, at 13:11, Radioactive Frog wrote: > thanks, let us know how did you go. > > On Sun, Feb 28, 2010 at 5:47 AM, Usama Pervaiz <chaudri_at_gmail.com> wrote: > >> We are using the management vrf for the keepalives. otherwise its the >> default vrf. We didnt want to get too fancy with the config as we dont >> need it. Another member on the list replied and said that the 2K's >> currently do not support this yet. I will have to call Cisco and get >> more info. >> >> Thank you all for your help!! >> >> Usama >> >> On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 7:33 AM, Radioactive Frog <pbhatkoti_at_gmail.com> >> wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> The config looks okay. I'd add this, just to make sure the right vrf (if >>> you're using any). >>> >>> vpc domain 1 >>> peer-keepalive destination 10.0.0.1 source 10.10.0.2 vrf vpc-keepalive >>> >>> Are you issueing show vpc status command from base system i.e. mgmt vdc >> or >>> one of the vdc which has peering with another one on a different box? >>> >>> >>> use switchto vdc <vdcName> command and then check the vpc status. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 4:27 PM, Usama Pervaiz <chaudri_at_gmail.com> >> wrote: >>>> >>>> Following is how i configured the vPC: >>>> >>>> 5K-A >>>> >>>> vpc domain 1 >>>> peer-keepalive destination 10.0.0.1 >>>> >>>> interface port-channel1 >>>> switchport mode trunk >>>> vpc peer-link >>>> spanning-tree port type network >>>> speed 10000 >>>> >>>> interface port-channel10 >>>> switchport access vlan 100 >>>> vpc 10 >>>> speed 1000 >>>> >>>> interface Ethernet1/17 >>>> switchport mode trunk >>>> channel-group 1 mode active >>>> >>>> interface Ethernet1/18 >>>> switchport mode trunk >>>> channel-group 1 mode active >>>> >>>> int e100/1/10 >>>> switchport access vlan 100 >>>> spanning-tree port type edge >>>> channel-group 10 mode active >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> This is the config on 5K-B: >>>> >>>> vpc domain 1 >>>> peer-keepalive destination 10.0.0.2 >>>> >>>> interface port-channel1 >>>> switchport mode trunk >>>> vpc peer-link >>>> spanning-tree port type network >>>> >>>> interface port-channel10 >>>> switchport access vlan 100 >>>> vpc 10 >>>> speed 1000 >>>> >>>> interface Ethernet1/17 >>>> switchport mode trunk >>>> channel-group 1 mode active >>>> >>>> >>>> interface Ethernet1/18 >>>> switchport mode trunk >>>> channel-group 1 mode active >>>> >>>> interface Ethernet100/1/10 >>>> switchport access vlan 100 >>>> spanning-tree port type edge >>>> channel-group 10 mode active >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> sh vpc brief >>>> Legend: >>>> (*) - local vPC is down, forwarding via vPC peer-link >>>> >>>> vPC domain id : 1 >>>> Peer status : peer adjacency formed ok >>>> vPC keep-alive status : peer is alive >>>> Configuration consistency status: success >>>> vPC role : secondary >>>> >>>> vPC Peer-link status >>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> id Port Status Active vlans >>>> -- ---- ------ -------------------------------------------------- >>>> 1 Po1 up 1,14-15,100 >>>> >>>> vPC status >>>> >>>> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> id Port Status Consistency Reason Active >>>> vlans >>>> ------ ----------- ------ ----------- -------------------------- >>>> ----------- >>>> 100 Po100 up success success 100 >>>> 114 Po114 down* failed Consistency Check Not - >>>> Performed >>>> >>>> >>>> I dont understand why the status says down and the consistency says >>>> failed. Please let me know if i configured something wrong or if i >>>> need addition steps. >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> Usama >>>> >>>> >>>> On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 10:47 PM, Radioactive Frog <pbhatkoti_at_gmail.com >>> >>>> wrote: >>>>> My question is do i even need to configure anything if the servers are >>>>> doing NIC teaming? >>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>> ah... >>>>> the answer is simply "yes", you need to configure 802.13ad on your >>>>> switch as >>>>> well where those 2 teamed NIC's are connected. If this is not done >> then >>>>> the >>>>> incoming traffic to server will not load balanced. >>>>> >>>>> Server to Switch traffic flow: >>>>> -------------------------------------- >>>>> Outgoing from server = Teaming servers ports, if servers are Linux it >>>>> creates a "BOND0" interface which is logically interface created by >> the >>>>> OS >>>>> when teaming is enabled. The OS sends any traffic originated from (in >>>>> virtulization environment VM's) OS through the BOND0 interface out to >> a >>>>> switch. >>>>> >>>>> same concept applies fomr incoming traffic. >>>>> >>>>> HTH >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 2:24 PM, Usama Pervaiz <chaudri_at_gmail.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> The uplink vPC to the 6509's is working. The VSS consists of 2 6509's >>>>>> which are multi-chassis portchannel to the 2 5K's (which are using >>>>>> vPC) My concern is at the host level. If i configure the port-channel >>>>>> to the servers using LACP the port channel says its down and the port >>>>>> itself is in Individual mode (I). If i configure it with just this >>>>>> command (as stated in the quick start guide for vPC) >>>>>> >>>>>> channel-group 10 >>>>>> >>>>>> The port-channel shows up but I do not see any increase in throughput >>>>>> from the server. >>>>>> >>>>>> My question is do i even need to configure anything if the servers >> are >>>>>> doing NIC teaming? >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks for your response. >>>>>> >>>>>> Usama >>>>>> >>>>>> On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 10:11 PM, Radioactive Frog >>>>>> <pbhatkoti_at_gmail.com> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> vPC is not supported within the BOX (even it has 2 vdc/vss). You >> must >>>>>>> have 2 >>>>>>> physical boxes i.e. 2x6509. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 11:08 AM, Usama Pervaiz <chaudri_at_gmail.com >>> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hello all, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> We are rolling out a deployment of Nexus 5k's and 2k's with VSS. >>>>>>>> following is the design that we have chosen. The >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ___________ >>>>>>>> N2K1------>N5K1 --------------- | 6509 | >>>>>>>> Server< || -----vPC---- | VSS | >>>>>>>> LACP N2K2------>N5K2 -------------- |___________| >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The N5K1 and N5K2 are using vPC to connect to the 6509's. This >> link >>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>> up and functioning properly. >>>>>>>> My question is if we are using active/active LACP from the server >>>>>>>> side >>>>>>>> NIC's do we have to configure port-channel on the N2K1 and N2K2? I >>>>>>>> have tried it with and without and in both cases my maximum >>>>>>>> throughput >>>>>>>> is just below 1Gbps. I would have though that teaming up the NIC's >>>>>>>> on >>>>>>>> the server would give me at least something over a gig of >> throughput >>>>>>>> or am I wrong in my assumption. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Also when I specify the mode for the channel-group as active >>>>>>>> (channel-group 10 mode active) my port-channel status shows as >> down >>>>>>>> and my port status is (I). Is LACP not supported on host ports for >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> N2K's? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> If I have confused anyone then I apologize!! >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thanks in advance! >>>>>>>> Usama >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >> _______________________________________________________________________ >>>>>>>> Subscription information may be found at: >>>>>>>> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html > > > Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net > > _______________________________________________________________________ > Subscription information may be found at: > http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.netReceived on Sun Feb 28 2010 - 15:30:49 ART
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Mar 01 2010 - 06:28:36 ART