cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
cancel
3564
Views
6
Helpful
9
Replies

4500 dual supervisor second sup disabled?

paul.matthews
Level 5
Level 5

A colleague has just called me, so things are a little hazy just yet. He has a 4500 switch with dual sup, and on one switch if he does a sh mod it shows the second sup as disabled - any ideas why that may be the case?

Thanks.

1 Accepted Solution

Accepted Solutions

Edison Ortiz
Hall of Fame
Hall of Fame

The secondary Supervisor can be in rommon mode.

Have your colleague plug a console cable on this Supervisor to verify its status.

View solution in original post

9 Replies 9

Martin Parry
Level 3
Level 3

Is the 4500 an R eg: is it a 4507R or 4510R? If you have placed it in a 4506 for instance the secondary supervisor will not be supported?

The cat4.5k supervisors are keyed and cannot be (fully) inserted into non-supervisor slots, which is what slot >1 would be in a non-R chassis. Same goes for line cards in sup slots.

To the OP: I would start by looking at the console messages when the supervisor is first inserted, making sure blinky lights happen etc. Also use the "sh diag" commands to see if the thing failed a post test or something.

Edison Ortiz
Hall of Fame
Hall of Fame

The secondary Supervisor can be in rommon mode.

Have your colleague plug a console cable on this Supervisor to verify its status.

Bingo - that's the one - now told to boot and all OK.

Many thanks for all the suggestions,

Paul.

Paul,

May be a good idea to check the conf reg also to ensure the sup will auto boot if it runs into issues again. Had that problem, one of my intern techs through in a rommon conf reg and it caused a similiar status.

Don't worry - I am going to get my colleague to check it...

Thanks,

Paul

hello all,

I have a similar query with dual supervisor engines (4507Rs +sup iv)

is it necessary to have same ios version on both of them for sso redundancy ?

Next is ...

I have 2 uplinks configured on the first one..but when i inserted the second sup, the second uplink from first sup (gi 1/2) was not coming up. But it automatically takes gi 2/1 port on the second sup as the second uplink..is this is a normal behaviour...?

please help...

Yes, you need same IOS on both.

Yes, the second port is disabled on the dual-sup hardware.

thank you so much for clearing my doubts

Getting Started

Find answers to your questions by entering keywords or phrases in the Search bar above. New here? Use these resources to familiarize yourself with the community:

Innovations in Cisco Full Stack Observability - A new webinar from Cisco