RE: OT: VSS dual active detection mechanisms

Am I missing something???

Core-01#show switch virt dual-active fast-hello
Fast-hello dual-active detection enabled: Yes

Fast-hello dual-active interfaces:
Port Local State Peer Port Remote State
---------------------------------------------------
Gi1/1/48 Link up Gi2/1/48 Link up

Core-01#

I think you can spare 1 Gig port per chassis (2 total). I can't even imagine
the fun experienced with two active Core Switches. Sounds like an RGE to me.
JB

-----Original Message-----
From: nobody_at_groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody_at_groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of Thomas
Perrier
Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2010 7:46 AM
To: Koen Zeilstra
Cc: ccielab_at_groupstudy.com
Subject: Re: OT: VSS dual active detection mechanisms

On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 2:04 PM, Koen Zeilstra <koen_at_koenzeilstra.com> wrote:

> Which of the three mechanisms Cisco provides is your favorite (or least
> annoying :-)) .
>
> 1. dual active detection using PAgP
> 2. dual active detection using IP BFD
> 3. dual active detection using fast hello's
>
> I personally dislike the fact that 1. is proprietary and as a result not an
> option in a multivendor environment. Further more I would prefer
> portchannels to be statically configured instead of dynamic.
>
> 2 en 3 require a direct layer2 ethernet connection, which is a waste of
> ports (especially in a chassis which has only 10 G interfaces).
>
> What's your opinion? Maybe there are more methods that I have overlooked.

I prefer fast hellos. Yes, this wastes a few ports not used for data
traffic, but how much is this optional VSS security worth for you? I
admit burning 10GE ports would be a pity, though, they aren't cheap.
You don't have many other options to save ports anyways: either use
PagP which you don't want, or don't use any dual active detection
mechanism...

-Thomas

Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
Received on Thu Oct 21 2010 - 10:07:48 ART