HSRP on a 4506

Unanswered Question
May 29th, 2009

Hi,

I have a 4506 Sup V with 2-24 port ethernet modules adn want to provide redundancy via HSRP (since 4506 only have one sup). I know the configuration part for HSRP, but I'm confused with the physical part of the design.

I'm going to get another 4506 with sup V, and will like to have this pair of switches in the HSRP scenario, but keeping my lan devices physically connected to the first 4506. Is this possible or do I need additional devices or STP as well ?

I'm very confused

Does any one have a diagram that can help me undestand how can I acheive this ?

I have this problem too.
0 votes
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Overall Rating: 0 (0 ratings)
Loading.
glen.grant Fri, 05/29/2009 - 06:30

If your 4506 are your distribution layer then your access layer switches would have 1 connection to each of the 4506's and you would define hsrp on each 4506 for the vlans you want on the access layer switches.

Dennis Mink Fri, 05/29/2009 - 06:46

in addition to this, if your 4506's have any end stations connected to its 24 port modules, adding hsrp will only add redundancy for your supervisor module. it will not make the whole 4506 redundant.

If you are using them to connect servers or any other device that does NIC pairing; connect them to each 4506 and run HSRP, or possibly run it without HSRP and perform loadbalancing either by means of EIGRP routing or GLBP,

seems like you will need to do some design work

lamav Fri, 05/29/2009 - 07:05

Hi:

There are many different methods for connecting access switches to a distribution layer, so what you definitely would want to do is read some of Cisco's SRND documents on available and supported designs.

Can you clarify one thing? Are these 4506s acting as a routed access layer switch that has the servers directly connected to them, or are there a pair of access switches that are uplinked to these 4506s?

Victor

wdiclo Fri, 05/29/2009 - 07:32

Thank you all for the responses.

I seem to have a better idea of my options are, but want to clarify some more.

My 4506 is acting as core/distribution and has servers, routers and firewalls as well as end user's PC direclty connected to it. So the option of having the access switches uplkinked to both 4506 will only work for those switches, not for the other routers, servers and firewall unless I make them redundant to the other 4506 as well. Unfortunatly thats not an viable option for the end user's PC.

One more thing is that I can connect the servers, routers adn firewall to an additional switch and them make redundant connection to the other 4506, but does this make sense ? I will not be using the 24 port modules on the 4506, they will be useless.

Is it possible to have diagram of the more viable option, or maybe a link that will show something to see if I can do a workaround.

Thanks

lamav Fri, 05/29/2009 - 08:35

Hi, let me be blunt for a second. What you have is not a collapsed core/distro layer; what you have is a mess. :-)

Is your company willing to go for a total redesign? What are your budgetary constraints?

Victor

wdiclo Fri, 05/29/2009 - 10:16

Thanks for the response.

I know is kind of messy, thats the hole point, to make it neat.

We are deciding to put a 4507 with dual V sup's. Have this one to act as the real core connecting to building different floors distribution switches and keep the 4506 for server aggregation also connected to the 4507 in the datacenter.

We beleive is a cleaner approach.

Thanks to all

BrinksArgentina Fri, 05/29/2009 - 10:36

This is far better, because you need L2 and L3 redundancy in the same box, and that be done with dual supervisors (or a 3750 stack).

Guido

Actions

This Discussion