We are trying to set up Auto Deploy for UCS B200 M3 blade servers. Our setup has the chassis connected to dual 6248 Fabric Interconnects. We were successful in getting this to work when the blades were identified via MAC address configured on the DHCP server (Infoblox). However, in trying to resolve the scenario of the server attempting to PXE boot via either NIC, thus having two different MAC addresses, this scenario could not be supported on the DHCP server (mapping two MAC addresses to one IP address). Then we had the idea of using the GUID/UUID of the blade as a unique client identifier, as it is the same no matter which NIC is used.
We have tried to set this up, but have been unsuccessful. The blade sends out its' GUID using DHCP option 97, but the DHCP server is only looking for the Client ID via DHCP Option 61. We have not been able to determine how, or if, the blade server can send its' GUID via DHCP Option 61, and Infoblox tells us that their server cannot be configured to accept DHCP Option 97 as a client identifier.
Has anyone encountered this situation, and resolved it? Surely this isn't a unique situation, having a blade server with two NICs.
Our current UCS deployment is configured to map each NIC to a specific fabric interconnect, so choosing a single NIC per host, and binding that NIC to a single fabric interconnect, could potentially be a problem if the fabric is having connectivity issues.
This document will provide screenshots to outline the steps to setup
TACACS+ configuration to ACI and also the configuration required on
Cisco ACS server. Please find the official Cisco guide for configuring
TACACS+ Authentication to ACI:
Is it supported or NOT supported? It's a frequently asked question.
Before APIC, release 2.3(1f), transit routing was not supported within a
single L3Out profile. In APIC, release 2.3(1f) and later, you can
configure transit routing with a single L3Out pr...
Cisco Documents are usually accurate, but when it came to the document
on Cisco APIC Signature-Based Transactions it was slightly off the mark.
This document is for those novices to API like me who cant seem to
figure out how to go about performing signat...