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

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

3750 Stack vs. Spanning Tree Design


I'd like to get everyone's thoughts on a design type question.

I currently have two 3750s acting as core switches aggregating 15-20 other access switches throughout the domain. These are NOT stacked today...they have an etherchannel between them. This is a single flat vlan today.

Within the next few days, I'll be segmenting the newtork, enabling dot1q trunking on all uplinks, etc.

My main question is around HA, STP, and uplink configuration.

Do I want to remain having two separate 3750s having one of the uplinks blocked by STP OR configure the switches for Stacking and take advantage of the active/active uplinks withi cross stack EC, OR stack but with STP still blocking one of the uplinks. I suppose it comes down to what level of redunancy is better? Two physically separate 3750s, two stacked, or are they the same in your perspective. Any software defects when stacking that could cause problems?

Any insight is greatly appreciated.


Re: 3750 Stack vs. Spanning Tree Design

given the bandwidth advantage of using a stack configuration, i don't understand why you wouldn't be using that already.

here's cisco's white paper on the topic:

New Member

Re: 3750 Stack vs. Spanning Tree Design

Understood. I just started working here :)

I think of this question as the same as a 6500 with dual sups or two chassis with a single sup each. When in the Core of network, I'd always go for box level redunancy.

So for 3750, when stacked, I kind of think of that as losing box level redundancy, but I suppose it's not quite the same comparison b/c they are still two separate switches?

Re: 3750 Stack vs. Spanning Tree Design


If both switches are in the same Rack then there is no justification to Uplink them. By Stcking you will get much more control and easier to manage. If one of them fails the secind one takes over with minimum intruption. Further more say If you are currently uplinking all 4 Gigabit ports using Ether-Channels, you are getting 4 Gig aggr but if you use stacking instead you will get 32G backplane. On top of this you have no STP between them as both switches work like a single switch when you stack them.

Here is the full guide

and check this too to compare with other models



New Member

Re: 3750 Stack vs. Spanning Tree Design

Thanks for the replies, but the only reason I'm posiing this question is I've seen problems affect an entire stack with other vendors solutions. I am familiar with the bw, stp, and other benefits...just want to make sure I'm not essentially creating a single point of failure.

New Member

Re: 3750 Stack vs. Spanning Tree Design

Jaye, be careful. If you Stack the switches together you will be forced to use cross-stack etherchannel into the stack. The 3750s are not designed to aggregate this much etherchannel uplink. I know this from experience. I once tried to aggregate 20 access switches into a 6 stack 3750g Distribution switch and the performance was lousy. Some etherchannels would just not form and caused weird errors. I notified Cisco TAc and they werent able to fix the problem stating that I need to upgrade to 6500's which I did and problems were solved.

Just be aware!

New Member

Re: 3750 Stack vs. Spanning Tree Design

That's not really what I wanted to hear, but thanks for the feedback.

I will then migrate them in phases. Will keep STP in place to block the ports I will not create etherchanels for.


CreatePlease to create content