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. If you'd prefer to explore, try our test area to get started. And see here for current known issues.

New Member

Redundant Link between 3500 switches

We have a host of 3548's\3524s connected to 3508 via GBIC Fibre.

We are trying to incorporate some redundancy in our solution for a link

failure. We have spare copper ports on the 3524 which connects to the

servers and wanted to use these ports to connect to each3548 has a

redundant link which is blocked by Spanning tree and invoked in a loss

of fibre to a switch. Would we experience any problems with implementing




Our other thought was to cascade copper from the 3524 to a 3548 and then

from that 3548 to the next and so on.

Cisco Employee

Re: Redundant Link between 3500 switches

You can do both, either in chain-like 1-2-3-4-1 or like star with dual links.. and since this is 100MB link, the spanning should automatically block the 100Mb link and forward on 1G link. Make sure you make the main, core switch as the root of the spanning tree.

Here are some good doc. on spanning tree for your ref.

Re: Redundant Link between 3500 switches

A starshaped toplogy is to be preferred over cascading numerous switches.

For redundancy you might consider grouping the two ports into etherchannels. This will add load-balancing to the redundancy.

This can be implemented without much trouble.

New Member

Re: Redundant Link between 3500 switches

Etherchannels cannot be formed with links of different speeds. (A 100mb link cannot be grouped with a 1000mb link & so on..)