04-14-2009 06:17 AM
Hi all,
Just a couple of q's
From what I understand, the Nexus 2000 extenders are managed by the Nexus 5000's almost like they are an internal module. Can someone clarify how management is determined?
Like, say you have two Nexus 5000's, and the fabric extenders are are connected to both for redundancy. Are both 5000's capable of managing the 2000's or is one elected for the job?
Also, are there any detailed documentation guides on design and deployment specifically with Nexus platforms?
Thanks in advance.
Paul
04-14-2009 06:41 AM
Hello Paul,
We are just testing the Nexus 5020s and FEXs (2000s). The FEXs currently are only managed by one parent 5020 at a time. They go through a process ( I call it association) which makes them logically a part of the parent. If you have a second 5020 connected to the FEX and the link is active, the 5020 know it's there but thats it. If first 5020 is taken off line (link down or rebooted) the FEX will associate with the second box; however that process takes about 45 seconds. Don't forget that the ports connected to the FEX have to be configured specially to support the FEX as follows:
interface Ethernet1/15
switchport mode fex-fabric
fex associate 101
There are a couple of guides available:
and
04-17-2009 01:15 AM
Thanks!
04-23-2009 06:03 AM
There are 3 stages of FEX redundancy. First is 1 5k to 1 2k, then vPC between 5k's, but 1 2k only connects to 1 5k at a time. In the release after this, the goal is to have 2 5k's connected and a FEX connect via vPC (virtual port-channel) to both 5k's.
04-23-2009 06:14 AM
Thanks for the info. This is kinda what I meant, do you know where i'd find design information similar what you have just mentioned?
Paul.
04-23-2009 11:18 AM
Actually, im a little confused as to what you mean now.
I though vPC was only a N7K feature....
04-23-2009 11:20 AM
Paul,
Sorry, vPC is coming out in the next release for the 5k. I am looking for some documentation supporting my previous statement. I have seen a few road maps but not sure how much of that is well documented externally.
-John
07-07-2009 06:27 AM
Hi, John.
Any plan for FEX to support LACP at host interfaces, thanks.
Leo
07-07-2009 06:34 AM
I know host port-channels on FEX should be supported in 4.1(3), out in a few weeks. I believe this will include LACP and mode on.
07-07-2009 07:04 AM
Yeah been playing with 4.1 over the last couple of days - it works really well.
It will be even better once the configuration can be synchronized across the 5K's.
07-08-2009 05:12 AM
Hi, Paul.
What is your vPC scenario? if I have 2 Nexus 5010 and 2 C6500/SUP720, I would like to create 2 vPC channels, one for left-hand C6500/Sup720 goes to 1 pair of N5010, another for right-hand C6500/Sup720 goes to the same pair of N5010, and the uplinks would be multiple of Giga interfaces, any comments on this.
Leo.
07-07-2009 07:12 AM
thanks, John.
Leo
07-31-2009 08:18 PM
Hello All:
I've just upgrade my Nexus 5010's to 4.1(3) and created the peer-link and peer-link keep-alive between the 2 5010's. I've dual-homed the FEX using VPC to both 5010's. Everything appears to be operational and the FEX is associated to both 5010's. However, when configuring a host port for the FEX from the first 5010, it doesn't appear the configuration of that port is synchronized to the second 5010.
Is this to be expected since the 5000's act a separate switches? It would be a nightmare to keep the configs in sync across both switches for the same host port. Maybe I need to blow away the configs since I was perviously only single home this single FEX to only one of the 5010's.
Let me know if anybody has seen this with 4.1(3).
Thanks,
Patrick
08-03-2009 04:31 AM
Patrick,
You can consider the switches separate, but aware of the virtual port channel they share. Configuration is completely separate as well.
The active-active (dual-homed) scenario is a new concept, and I'm sure there will be changes in the future - but right now the mechanism doesn't exist to synchronize configurations.
Regards,
John Gill
08-05-2009 06:08 AM
Thanks for the confirmation. I think we will wait on implementing dual-homed VPC for a few more revisions.
At least 4.1(3) fixes issues with TACACS we were seeing.
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: