Cisco Support Community
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Announcements

Welcome to Cisco Support Community. We would love to have your feedback.

For an introduction to the new site, click here. And see here for current known issues.

New Member

6500 design question

Hi,

We currently have a single 6509 with the following configuration.

Mod Ports Card Type Model

--- ----- -------------------------------------- ------------------

1 2 Catalyst 6000 supervisor 2 (Active) WS-X6K-SUP2-2GE

2 2 Catalyst 6000 supervisor 2 (Hot) WS-X6K-S2U-MSFC2

3 16 Pure SFM-mode 16 port 1000mb GBIC WS-X6816-GBIC

5 0 Switching Fabric Module-136 (Active) WS-X6500-SFM2

6 0 Switching Fabric Module-136 (Standby) WS-X6500-SFM2

7 48 SFM-capable 48 port 10/100/1000mb RJ45 WS-X6548-GE-TX

8 48 SFM-capable 48 port 10/100/1000mb RJ45 WS-X6548-GE-TX

We would like to increase redundancy in the network by adding an additional 6509.

Would taking the standby SUP2 card and putting it in the new 6509 be a good idea?

My thinking is that now we have 2 switches there isnt really a need to have a standby supervisor card in both switches.

Also, does anyone know if this is IOS supports iBGP (i dont have access to the Cisco tools)

c6k222-ps-mz.122-18.SXD7.bin

Many Thanks

Andy

1 ACCEPTED SOLUTION

Accepted Solutions
Hall of Fame Super Blue

Re: 6500 design question

Andy

You don't say what other modules will be in the 2nd chassis but that aside it really depends on what you are connecting to your 6500 switches.

If it is servers and WAN/MAN connections then as long as you can connect to both switches ie. dual honed servers and redundant WAN connections then yes this is a good idea.

Currently if your sup fails the switch will keep running because you have a standby sup. If you use a 2nd chassis then obviously when the sup fails the switch fails. So if you have any connections that can only connect to one switch you need to weigh these again the added redundancy you get with a 2nd chassis. It may be that you are introducing less redundancy in terms of the important connections by using 2 chassis's.

As for BGP - software advisor is playing up for me at the moment but easiest way to find out is on the 6500

6500(config)# router bgp 65001

If it accepts it then you have BGP/IBGP support.

Jon

2 REPLIES
Hall of Fame Super Blue

Re: 6500 design question

Andy

You don't say what other modules will be in the 2nd chassis but that aside it really depends on what you are connecting to your 6500 switches.

If it is servers and WAN/MAN connections then as long as you can connect to both switches ie. dual honed servers and redundant WAN connections then yes this is a good idea.

Currently if your sup fails the switch will keep running because you have a standby sup. If you use a 2nd chassis then obviously when the sup fails the switch fails. So if you have any connections that can only connect to one switch you need to weigh these again the added redundancy you get with a 2nd chassis. It may be that you are introducing less redundancy in terms of the important connections by using 2 chassis's.

As for BGP - software advisor is playing up for me at the moment but easiest way to find out is on the 6500

6500(config)# router bgp 65001

If it accepts it then you have BGP/IBGP support.

Jon

New Member

Re: 6500 design question

Thanks John,

Good point about ensuring the devices connecting to the switches are dual homed.

158
Views
0
Helpful
2
Replies