NIC Teaming with different switches
We are trying to configure nic teaming on our servers/blades
here are the scenarios :
Network is full redundant with active passive topology.
2 backbone sw <--> 2 distr sw <--> access switches
Here is the scenario :
We should eliminate the single point of failures, the only spof is the servers, we are planning to use redundant nics on the servers connecting to TWO DIFFERENT Switches. (All switches are Cisco)
I know we can use of nic-teaming software (dual homing, HA) of several vendors for fault tolerance BUT many of the solutions are only for a single switch connection.
We need a high availability (nic-teaming) solution to use with our full redundant network.
And operating systems are being used are Windows 2000-2003, Linux, Solaris
Any specific recommendations are welcome.
Thanks in advance.
here are the scenarios :
Network is full redundant with active passive topology.
2 backbone sw <--> 2 distr sw <--> access switches
Here is the scenario :
We should eliminate the single point of failures, the only spof is the servers, we are planning to use redundant nics on the servers connecting to TWO DIFFERENT Switches. (All switches are Cisco)
I know we can use of nic-teaming software (dual homing, HA) of several vendors for fault tolerance BUT many of the solutions are only for a single switch connection.
We need a high availability (nic-teaming) solution to use with our full redundant network.
And operating systems are being used are Windows 2000-2003, Linux, Solaris
Any specific recommendations are welcome.
Thanks in advance.
ASKER CERTIFIED SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
Lnkevin:
On page 42, number 10:
Aggregated teams (802.3ad \ LACP and GEC\FEC) must be connected to only a single switch that supports IEEE 802.3a, LACP or GEC/FEC.
<!--[if gte mso 9]> Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE MicrosoftInternetExplorer4
On page 42, number 10:
Aggregated teams (802.3ad \ LACP and GEC\FEC) must be connected to only a single switch that supports IEEE 802.3a, LACP or GEC/FEC.
<!--[if gte mso 9]> Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE MicrosoftInternetExplorer4
Yikes!
Sorry about the metadata guys. I've posted a request to delete the post.
Here it is again (hopefully without the additional data). :-)
Lnkevin:
On page 42, number 10:
Aggregated teams (802.3ad \ LACP and GEC\FEC) must be connected to only a single switch that supports IEEE 802.3a, LACP or GEC/FEC.
Sorry about the metadata guys. I've posted a request to delete the post.
Here it is again (hopefully without the additional data). :-)
Lnkevin:
On page 42, number 10:
Aggregated teams (802.3ad \ LACP and GEC\FEC) must be connected to only a single switch that supports IEEE 802.3a, LACP or GEC/FEC.
My bad, page 28 and 29 for failover teaming. :-D
K
K
Good to know that Dell supports multichassis etherchannel.
If etherchannel is spread across two redundant LANs don't you run the risk of accidentally joining the 2 LANs together into a single fault domain where one misplaced management command can break both LANs?
It's hard enough keeping the networks seperate in a simple 2 switch SAN environment at the back end, you must guard against someone plugging a crossover between the 2 networks and merging the fabrics. It must be even harder on the LAN side since your management protocols go over the same medium as your traffic.
It's hard enough keeping the networks seperate in a simple 2 switch SAN environment at the back end, you must guard against someone plugging a crossover between the 2 networks and merging the fabrics. It must be even harder on the LAN side since your management protocols go over the same medium as your traffic.
>If etherchannel is spread across two redundant LANs don't you run the risk of accidentally joining the 2 LANs together into a single fault domain where one misplaced management command can break both LANs?
The etherchannel isn't between two LANs. The links are on a common LAN (broadcast domain).
But yes, if the link between the switches fail, it could get... interesting. But that's why you would have redundant links between the switches.
The etherchannel isn't between two LANs. The links are on a common LAN (broadcast domain).
But yes, if the link between the switches fail, it could get... interesting. But that's why you would have redundant links between the switches.
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/hw/switches/ps5023/products_configuration_example09186a00806cb982.shtml
And the 6500's using VSS.
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/prod/collateral/switches/ps5718/ps9336/prod_qas0900aecd806ed74b.html