Redundant Chassis or SUP/MSFC

Hi,
We have five 6500 series switches. One core switch has got Dual Sup 720 with MSFC2, we are using high availability feature for redundacy of the L2 and L3.
Another model which we can use is having two chassis working for L2 and L3 (HSRP)redundancy.
Please suggest which one is better and why?

Hi,
I would suggest going in for two chassis working for L2 and L3 redundancy. Its a much better option. Say if the power supply of the chassis fails, when you have dual sup, then dual sup if of no use!
Moreover with two chassis, you can configure HSRP for all vlans and also you can team-up your servers which provides you with high resiliency and scalability. Although all of it is possible with dual sup as well but then its not of much use in that scenario.
Hope this helps.
Regards,
AbhisheK
Please rate all posts!

Similar Messages

Cisco WS-X4548-RJ45V+ module showing as unsupported in 4510R-E chassis with SUP 6-E

Hello All.
I am facing an issue with WS-X4548-RJ45V+ line card in 4510R-E chassis with the following specs
- two sup 6-E running sso redundancy
- ROM version 12.2(44r) SG
- IOS version 15.0(2)SG enterprise services K9
- Dual Power supplies , 4200VAC each
I checked the minimum software requirement for the module and found that it is 12.2(50). I feel the behavior really strange as I have the latest IOS and a compatible chassis. Please help me to sort this issue out as soon as possible.
Please find the below output
Power consumed by backplane : 40 Watts
Mod Ports Card Type Model
---+-----+--------------------------------------+------------------+
1 48 10/100/1000BaseT Premium POE E Series WS-X4648-RJ45V+E
2 48 10/100/1000BaseT Premium POE E Series WS-X4648-RJ45V+E
3 48 10/100/1000BaseT Premium POE E Series WS-X4648-RJ45V+E
4 48 10/100/1000BaseT Premium POE E Series WS-X4648-RJ45V+E
5 6 Sup 6-E 10GE (X2), 1000BaseX (SFP) WS-X45-SUP6-E
6 6 Sup 6-E 10GE (X2), 1000BaseX (SFP) WS-X45-SUP6-E
7 48 10/100/1000BaseT Premium POE E Series WS-X4648-RJ45V+E
8 0 Unsupported module WS-X4548-RJ45V+
Thanks and Regards
Shabeeb

This is a futile attempt what you and/or your boss are trying to do. Let me explain:
1. The line card is identified as a WS-X4548-RJ45V+. It DOES NOT and WILL NOT say it is a "WS-X4548-RJ45V+E". You know why not? Because THERE IS NO SUCH MODEL as a "WS-X4548-RJ45V+E". The 45XX line card does NOT come in an "E" model. So you CANNOT install the line card into slots 8, 9 and 10 (because the line card is a CLASSIC line card).
2. Next, you CANNOT use a WS-X4548-RJ45V+ line card on a 4510R-E chassis. It is INCOMPATIBLE.
3. Let's say I'm wrong and you have an "E" model of a "WS-X4548-RJ45V+". You still will NOT be able to use it in your existing chassis. Why? Because current line card populations, where you have FIVE (5) 48-port line cards already, has hit the limit of your Sup6E/LE of 240-ports per chassis. As I've said in two previous responses (this will be the third response of the same thing), Sup6E/LE has a hard-coded limitation of 240 ports per chassis. And you've hit it. The Sup6E/LE was NEVER meant to "live" in a chassis larger than a 4507. And why NOT? Because there is a "hidden" documentation that the Sup6E/LE line card has a limit of 240-ports. This means that if you stick this line card into a fully-populated 4510 chassis, slots 8, 9 and 10 CANNOT be used, classic line card or not.
The "E" marking on the right-hand side of the line card means that the line card CAN BE supported in any "-E" or "+E" chassis. It's got nothing to do with the category of line card. The most important (technical) marking of this line card is the one on the left-hand side, the exact model number. This is what every network engineer wants to see. The right-hand marking is an addition meant to confused people.
Present the following options to your boss:
1. Do nothing; or
2. Upgrade your line card to Sup7/Sup8 and you can get slots 8, 9 and 10 functional (and increase the port count per chassis from 240 ports to 384 ports); or
3. Get another chassis.
I'm sorry to be brutally honest here.  Someone will need to confess up to your boss the following items:
Someone has purchased the WRONG LINE CARD.
Your current supervisor card, Sup6E/LE, has a hard-set limit of 240 ports (deal with it & move on).
We can all debate on what is written on the card, the conflicting information/data found in Cisco documentation, the colour of the sky, or the sum of "1+1=21". At the end of the day, the simple facts won't change.
I encourage you to get a "second-opinion" by raising a Cisco TAC Case out of this thread.

DLSw - MSFC - Redundancy

Do all the same rules apply when doing Dlsw redundancy with backup msfc's? For example, do I need the following types of commands:
dlsw transparent redundancy-enable xxxx master-priority x
and
dlsw transparent map local-mac xxxx remote-mac xxxx neighbor xxxx
and
dlsw transparent switch-support

Yes.
You may want to look into Single Router Mode (SRM) at http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/lan/cat6000/sw_6_3/confg_gd/redund.htm for your MSFC redundancy. You lose MSFC load balancing but simplify the configuration greatly since you don't need to use HSRP or DLSw Transparent Redundancy.
hope this helps
tim

Sup 1a upgrade to sup 2 msfc2 w/ pfc2

we are running a sup 2 msfc 2 with pfc2.
we have dual chassis with a single sup in each. when i try to enable hsrp between them they start dropping packets like crazy. I'm pretty sure the problem lies in my config of the msfc2's
we are running in native mode.
question 1
how do i verify same config on both msfc's
redundancy is running in rpr-plus
(dual chassis single sup)
TIA

You cannot run RPR or RPR-plus when the Supervisors are in different chassis. If you do have identical configs on both 6500's then that is why you are seeing performance problems. You need to have different logical IP's on the interface that you are running HSRP on and then the same Virtual address.
Ex:
6500-a(config)#int vlan 1
6500-a(config-if)#ip add 10.10.10.2 255.255.255.0
6500-a(config-if)#standby ip 10.10.10.1
6500-b(config)#int vlan 1
6500-b(config-if)#ip add 10.10.10.3 255.255.255.0
6500-b(config-if)#standby ip 10.10.10.1
HTH,
dan

Configuring 6513 Redundancy

i have two 6513 switches. each has 2 supervisor engines ( with msfc), a fwsm, idsm, nam, and 2 gigabit ethernet modules. One of them has been fully configured with redundancy btw the sup engines (using the high availability option) and the msfcs (using hsrp). How do i configure the second one such that the 2 switches will both be on the network and provide full redundancy btw them

Hi K.Adepetu,
Yo have redundancy between the 2 sups in single chassis there are many ways but 2 have redundancy between 2 completely different chassis has only one way which is HSRP.
So better idea will be to have SRM (Single Router Node) redundancy between the 2 sups in same chassis in this case one 1 sup will be active and if something happen to the active sup the 2nd sup will take over.
And configure HSRp between the sups in 2 different chassis so that if both the sup in same chassi go down the sup in second chassis will come up.
I will give you to link to have a look at it closer
http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/lan/cat6000/sw_7_2/confg_gd/redund.htm#wp1058202
This link wil lguide you how to configure 2 different chassi with 2 sup each for full redundancy.
HTH
Ankur

Error from MSFC

Hi,
I'm testing a Sup1/MSFC module and it gives this error. The Sup is able to come up but the MSFC doesn't boot properly(Ronmon). I think it's the MSFC card faulty, but would like to seek expert opinion from here.
Regards.
Console> (enable) sh test
Diagnostic mode: minimal (mode at next reset: minimal)
Environmental Status (. = Pass, F = Fail, U = Unknown, N = Not Present)
PS1: . PS2: N PS1 Fan: . PS2 Fan: N
Chassis-Ser-EEPROM: . Fan: .
Clock(A/B): A Clock A: . Clock B: .
VTT1: . VTT2: . VTT3: .
Module 1 : 2-port 1000BaseX Supervisor
Network Management Processor (NMP) Status: (. = Pass, F = Fail, U = Unknown)
ROM: . Flash-EEPROM: . Ser-EEPROM: . NVRAM: . EOBC Comm: .
Line Card Status for Module 1 : PASS
Port Status :
Ports 1 2
Line Card Diag Status for Module 1 (. = Pass, F = Fail, N = N/A)
Module 1
Earl V Status :
NewLearnTest: .
IndexLearnTest: .
DontForwardTest: .
DontLearnTest: .
ConditionalLearnTest: .
BadBpduTest: .
TrapTest: .
MatchTest: .
SpanTest: .
CaptureTest: .
ProtocolMatchTest: .
IpHardwareScTest: F
IpxHardwareScTest: F
MultipleRoutersScTest: F
L3DontScTest: .
L3RedirectTest: .
L3Capture2Test: .
L3VlanMetTest: F
AclPermitTest: F
AclDenyTest: .
Loopback Status [Reported by Module 1] :
Ports 1 2
Channel Status :
Channel Test skipped as Minimal diagnostics selected
InlineRewrite Status :
InlineRewrite Test skipped as Minimal diagnostics selected

Hi, Sorry i don't have the module with me anymore. It doesn't belong to me. Here are some more of capture. I still think it's the MSFC, not the chassis nor Sup. Interested to know your opinion of this error.
Regards.
System Bootstrap, Version 5.3(1)
Copyright (c) 1994-1999 by cisco Systems, Inc.
c6k_sup1 processor with 65536 Kbytes of main memory
Autoboot executing command: "boot bootflash:cat6000-sup.5-5-1.bin"
Uncompressing file: ##################################################################################################################################################################################################################################################################################################################################################################################################################################################################################################################################################################################################################################################################################################################################################################################################################################################################################################################################################################################################################################################################################################################################################################################################################################################################################################################################################################################################################################################################################################################################################################################################
System Power On Diagnostics
DRAM Size ....................64 MB
Testing DRAM..................Passed
NVRAM Size ...................512 KB
Level2 Cache .................Present
System Power On Diagnostics Complete
Boot image: bootflash:cat6000-sup.5-5-1.bin
Local Test Mode encounters Minor hardware problem in Module # 1
Running System Diagnostics from this Supervisor (Module 1)
This may take up to 2 minutes....please wait
IP address for Catalyst not configured
DHCP/BOOTP will commence after the ports are online
Ports are coming online ...
Cisco Systems Console
2005 Jul 22 05:59:13 %SYS-1-SYS_ENABLEPS: Power supply 1 enabled
Enter password: 2005 Jul 22 05:59:22 %MLS-5-NDEDISABLED:Netflow Data Export disabled
2005 Jul 22 05:59:23 %MLS-5-MCAST_STATUS:IP Multicast Multilayer Switching is enabled
2005 Jul 22 05:59:23 %SYS-5-MOD_OK:Module 1 is online
Console> (enable) sh mod
Mod Slot Ports Module-Type Model Sub Status
1 1 2 1000BaseX Supervisor WS-X6K-SUP1A-2GE yes ok
Mod Module-Name Serial-Num
1 SADXXXXXXXX
Mod MAC-Address(es) Hw Fw Sw
1 xx-xx-xx-xx-xx-xx to xx-xx-xx-xx-xx-xx 7.0 5.3(1) 5.5(1)
xx-xx-xx-xx-xx-xx to xx-xx-xx-xx-xx-xx
xx-xx-xx-xx-xx-xx to xx-xx-xx-xx-xx-xx
Mod Sub-Type Sub-Model Sub-Serial Sub-Hw
1 L3 Switching Engine WS-F6K-PFC SADXXXXXXXX 1.1

Vss quad sup support for 4500 series

Hi all
I'm looking at at 4507r+e with dual supervisor 7
I want to run vss, however does it support quad supervisors?
I hear the second one will have to be in rommon?
In a failover how would I get the 2nd supervisor working ?
Would you need to manually boot it?

Have a look at the config guide:
Quad-Supervisor (In-chassis Standby Supervisor Engine) Support
The Catalyst 4500 series switches support dual supervisors in a redundant chassis, which can be configured for SSO or RPR mode. However, when a chassis is running in VSS mode, it supports a second supervisor engine, but only in rommon mode. In-Chassis-Standby (ICS) can not participate in control, management, or forwarding plane functioning. This makes ports on the supervisor engine in rommon mode available for forwarding although it neither participates in any switchover nor provides protection against any failure. In VSS mode, an In-Chassis-Active (ICA) supervisor engine participates in VSS control/ management operation and manages ports on the supervisor engine in rommon mode.
If the second supervisor engine is inserted in a redundant chassis, the following information applies:
•It must also be manually configured for VSS mode, i.e., it must have been converted from standalone to VSS mode previously. If you insert a supervisor engine that was not configured for VSS mode, it will disrupt the operation of the ICA supervisor engine. If it was previously configured, automatic boot must be disabled (i.e., to boot only to ROM Monitor) with the confreg command in rommon.
The supervisor engine does not takeover or boot automatically when the ICA supervisor engine fails. A manual boot up is required to make it participate in VSS; it then functions as an ICA supervisor engine.
More details on rommon commands are found at this URL:
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/switches/lan/catalyst4500/15.1.2/XE_340/configuration/guide/rommon.html#wp1013959
•A supervisor engine's conversion from standalone to VSS occurs per engine. If two supervisor engines exist in a chassis, one should be retained in rommon or removed, before conversion occurs. You can convert the second supervisor to VSS mode while the first supervisor is removed or in rommon, with the additional step of setting it to "boot only to ROM Monitor." When both engines are converted to VSS, they can be inserted into the chassis together and re-booted.
•Booting a chassis with two supervisor engines configured for VSS causes one of the engines to become the ICA and participate in VSS. The other engine, which becomes the ICS, will continuously reload. The secondary supervisor (the ICS) must be configured to "boot only to ROM Monitor" with automatic boot disabled.
•When the ICA fails, the ICS doesn't take over because ICS support of SSO or RPR mode is unavailable. ICS (the secondary supervisor) must be booted manually to become the ICA and manage the VSS operations. For this to happen, the former active supervisor engine must remain in rommon mode.
•ISSU support requires ICA supervisor engines on both chassis. The ICS supervisor engine does not participate in upgrade or any forwarding operations.
•Because ICS supervisor engines do not communicate with ICA supervisors, VSS and other configurations must be done at conversion time on the ICS. If not done or the configurations do not match the necessary VSS parameters (like, SwitchId, Domain, and VSL configurations), it cannot form a VSS when ICA goes down and ICS is booted manually. You can, however, enter these "bootup" commands to make it join an existing VSS domain.
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/switches/lan/catalyst4500/15.1.2/XE_340/configuration/guide/vss.html#wp1204229
HTH

Small DC Switch Design

Hello,
I'm working on options for a small DC switch design. This DC has 5
virtual hosts with 10-20 guest vm's each. Each server has two quad
port gig nics with 6 of the 8 gig ports connected (3 for iSCSI and 3
for data or management. It also has two 3 node sans each with 2 gig
ports per node, a host of other small servers including voice servers,
management servers, asa firewall, and a few routers. Total of 50-60
ports as of right now.
Connected to the DC is 7 other buildings each with there own 1 gig
fiber connection serving about 3000 devices in total including
desktops, laptops, ip phones, wireless ap's, building automation,
alarm panels, etc....
Right now in each of the 7 buildings has a 3560G as an aggregation
switch connected back to the DC. The DC also has a few 3560G's and
3750G's for the sans and servers. The system seems to work ok for the
most part aside from micro bursts overwhelming the buffers on these
switches and the etherchannel trunks between them dropping a minor
amount of packets. QOS is configured for the voice network and there
are little to no complaints.
What I would like to know (costs being the biggest factor) is what
would be a better switch design for the current and future traffic in
this network. Some options I was thinking about are as follows:
I would needs at least 96 ports.
So option A is to go with a 4506-E bundle with 2 48 port line cards,
sup 6l-e and a WS-X4712-SFP+E or something of the sorts.   And then
upgrade to the enterprise services license and do all of the routing
and switching for the DC on this one switch. Means little redundancy
and no failover.
Option B was to go with the same 4506-E bundle, without the extra
license and without the SFP line card and put in some sort of layer
three aggregation switch, possibly an me3600x.
Option C Is to go with the 4503-E, the SFP line card and the IP
Enterprise services license. And two top of rack switches, either
2360's or 4948's.
I would like to do some PBR on the aggregation switch, but I am unsure if the me3600x is capable of doing that.
I have no experience in this matter so any other thoughts or
suggestions would be appreciated.
Thanks,
Dan.

Disclaimer
The   Author of this posting offers the information contained within this   posting without consideration and with the reader's understanding that   there's no implied or expressed suitability or fitness for any purpose.   Information provided is for informational purposes only and should not   be construed as rendering professional advice of any kind. Usage of this posting's information is solely at reader's own risk.
Liability Disclaimer
In   no event shall Author be liable for any damages whatsoever (including,   without limitation, damages for loss of use, data or profit) arising out of the use or inability to use the posting's information even if Author has been advised of the possibility of such damage.
Posting
If cost is the biggest factor, and the only notable issue now is occasional packet drops due to insufficient buffers, perhaps some buffer tuning would be something to consider.
A really important question to answer is how important redundancy. At lower port densities (3 to 4 stack members), the switch stack is less expensive than a chassis that supports redundancy. At very low port densities (2 to 3 stack members) the stack might be less expensive than even a non-redundant chassis.
BTW, the 3750-E/X offers much more performance than the original 3750 series. If offers wire-speed PPS and fabric per switch, twice the ring bandwidth and uses the ring, for unicast, much "smarter".
Perhaps a dual WS-C3750X-12S or WS-C3750X-24S for your core with dual MEC fiber etherchannl links to your aggregation switches? In the DC itself, you might also use 2960s to provide DC edge ports. For growth, a dual 3750-X stack would support four 10 gig ports which could be used with 10 gig servers or 10 gig SAN or as a 10gig link to other DC switches, such as the 2960S (which support their own stacking technology).

Cisco 4500 Quad Supervisor Deployment

Hi Experts,
I'm installing 2nd supervisor in Cisco 4500 redundant chassis.
1st supervisor is working fine with Enterprise Services License but now i need to install 2nd (newly purchased supervisor) in the chassis.
Could someone please help me on how to deploy only one license on the chassis level and link the 2nd supervisor with the existing one's enterprise services license.
Cisco delivered paper base license PAK with the 2nd supervisor, so do i need to use that PAK for this new supervisor OR without doing it i can sync the new supervisor with the license of existing one.
Your usual support is required.
With Regards,
Umer

Disclaimer
The Author of this posting offers the information contained within this posting without consideration and with the reader's understanding that there's no implied or expressed suitability or fitness for any purpose. Information provided is for informational purposes only and should not be construed as rendering professional advice of any kind. Usage of this posting's information is solely at reader's own risk.
Liability Disclaimer
In no event shall Author be liable for any damages whatsoever (including, without limitation, damages for loss of use, data or profit) arising out of the use or inability to use the posting's information even if Author has been advised of the possibility of such damage.
Posting
I recall, all you need to do is install the 2nd sup with an Enterprise license, and insure SSO is configured. (I also recall, unless Enterprise license is already installed, 2nd sup installation "acts funny'; at least with sup7.) I.e. don't believe you need to muck about with license again.
Your subject title, though, has "Quad", so is this for VSS?

Reinstall iphoto 11

So I did the update and now my iPhone ( 4s ) crashes my iPhoto 9.3.2, so I need to revert to an earlier version which is downloading as I type. When iPhoto crashes it tends to hang the system up, forcing a reboot.

Thanks for the question.
I installed the update from Apple. iPhoto going from 9.3.1 to 9.3.2, called an update.
I connected my iPhone to offload some images.
The application iPhoto crashes, and locks up the "whole OS".
So I seek instructions on "re-installing" the Application iPhoto. Preferable with losing the library ( yes, it is back up redundantly ( time machine/super duper ).
Pointer toward Apples instructions on reinstalling, on the road and do not have iLife disk. Early 2011 Macbook Pro.

Server farm design under 3 tier design

Hi guys,
Just wondering which is best practise?
connect server farm into distribution switches or connect directly to core switches?
Understand from different articles stated different methology but from what i see in cisco network design, server farm is always connected to the distribution switches.
What other factors to consider when connecting to distribution and when to consider when connecting to core ?
Thanks

Disclaimer
The Author of this posting offers the information contained within this posting without consideration and with the reader's understanding that there's no implied or expressed suitability or fitness for any purpose. Information provided is for informational purposes only and should not be construed as rendering professional advice of any kind. Usage of this posting's information is solely at reader's own risk.
Liability Disclaimer
In no event shall Author be liable for any damages whatsoever (including, without limitation, damages for loss of use, data or profit) arising out of the use or inability to use the posting's information even if Author has been advised of the possibility of such damage.
Posting
Jon, very nice reply. Thanks for joining this thread.
This makes sense because what real value would a dedicated core provide. If traffic is routing between vlans it does this on the distro switches and the only time it routes anywhere else is to the WAN and you do not high speed core switches to do this.
Yep, in in my cited example, the 4th 6509 uses its 6708's for two off-site 10g links.
I have also done the same as Joseph and connected servers to a collapsed pair of distro/core switches primarily because of cost but also because your core/distro switches tend to have the greater throughput so it is a logical place to put them.. In addition because they are on the core/distro switches you do not have to worry about oversubscribing uplinks from a different pair of switches, although there might still be oversubscription on the core/distro switches.
Re: cost, again, yep, why buy another box?
Re: greater throughput, also again, yep, for example, note I noted 4th box is all CEF720, i.e. all fabric, vs. classic bus in user 6509s.
Re: oversubscription, and again, yep, 4th 6509's server 6748 cards are 40 Gbps to fabric, vs. gig or even 10g uplinks from a separate server switch.
Jon, one reason I enjoyed, so much, reading you've done similar for similar reasons, late last year the business unit came to me and told me they want a separate dual core to increase reliability (as call centers are considered critical). I noted that, yes, adding a second "core" box, by adding a redundant chassis (vs. the single chassis with redundant everything else) would decrease the MTBF by about 2 hours a year for the off-site links (expensively, IMO, for those 2 hours, but as they are footing the bill, who am I to say no), but I didn't see any advantage for adding another (2nd) "core" box (vs. continuing using the existing box as a collapsed core). Well I got overruled because you just can't share a "core" device for anything else .
Unfortunately, a case of, I think, some reading some design guides, which say "core" devices do X, and so therefore, you can never do otherwise. Again, so very much enjoyed reading someone else not following the 3 tier model, always, literally.

6500 Virtual Switching System (VSS) design in MPLS PE PoP

...

Hello,
The VSS is not designed to function as a PE , its best fit in a DataCenter Environment where I have Multiple Links from Core/Access to the Distribution layer.
Although VSS provides Higher backblane Throughput, Ease and Single Administartion Managment, and Redundancy SSO between SUP engines at the Control Plane, These features wont help at the MPLS edge, why? because Both Chasis have identical configuration, So I cant have two links from the CE or from the P router to the same VSS Chasis, So I have No redundancy here.
what if a VSL link fails between the Two Chasis, Each chasis will revert to be as a standlone chasis with Identical Configuration, So I dont have redundancy here.
The VSS would be an ideal option as a PE router if the CE and P routers can form a direct Layer-3 Eitherchannel to each of the VSS chasis in order to benefit from a redundancy, in this case we can say we have (Intra Chasis Redundancy).
Since this Type of Scenario is not an option, then its normaly Service Providers prefer (Inter Chasis Redundancy) by having Two Different PE routers with two different Configuration to have resilency.
Other than that, it could quitely fit.
Regards,
Mohamed

CSM Bridging during Backups?

I have two questions? This might seem like some dumb questions but, we have dual CSM's 4.2.6 in 6509 IOS 12.2(18)SXF in bridge mode. 1st question is, we have backup clients on one network and the host on another. The host is on a vlan behind the CSM and the backup client is not. Correct me if im wrong, but from my knowledge traffic should not go through the CSM when accessing the server RIP's directly. But why, does the CSM portchannel260 get impacted during backups? Shouldn't it route through the MSFC first? 2nd question if the backup server and the host is both on the same network but different vlans will it still communicate thru the MSFC or CSM? Please advise...Thx!

Usually in bridge mode, the default gateway of a device is a router (often the MSFC) behind the CSM. The CSM bridge the front vlan with the backend vlan.
So, even if the MSFC is the device that does the routing between your source and destination, this traffic still needs to go through the CSM.
Same if the source and destination are in the same subnet. If the source is in vlan X and the destination in vlan Y using the same subnet with the CSM bridging the 2, the traffic still needs to go through the CSM.
So, you should look at the CSM as an external device even if it sits in the same chassis as the MSFC.
Gilles.

Catalyst rate limit

Hi,
please, could you recommend me the best way of limiting bandwidth on a port for catalyst 3560 and 6500.
Thanks in advance.

Hello,
what can help you with your task in the 3560 is called "SRR Shaping and Sharing" and described at
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/hw/switches/ps5528/products_configuration_guide_chapter09186a00801e85dd.html#1200681
the command to use would be "srr-queue bandwidth shape ".
With the Catalyst 6500 the answer gets really more tricky, because of many different modules and CatOS and IOS Sups MSFC, etc.
Could you be more specific on what you have in place?
Hope this helps! Please rate all posts.
Regards, Martin

6506 and 6509

Hello Experts,
I have a quick question.
Cisco Reommends to place the sup-1 and 2 in slot 1 and 2 of the chassis, and sup-720 to be places in slot 5 and 6 only.
my question is that why i should place sup-720 in slot 5 and 6 only and not in slot 1 and 2.
will appreciate your quick response.
Many Thanks.

Hello Experts,I have a quick question.Cisco Reommends to place the sup-1 and 2 in slot 1 and 2 of the chassis, and sup-720 to be places in slot 5 and 6 only.my question is that why i should place sup-720 in slot 5 and 6 only and not in slot 1 and 2.will appreciate your quick response.Many Thanks.
Hi Kaushik,
The Supervisor 720 incorporates a new version of the Policy Feature Card (PFC3A or PFC3B or PFC3BXL) as well as a new Multilayer Switch Feature Card (MSFC3) as well as an integrated 720 Gbps switch fabric. This level of integration increases slot efficiency of high performance and high availability configurations.Because the switch fabric is integrated with the supervisor, the Supervisor Engine 720 must be installed in particular slots.
Chasis                                                                                        Slots for Supervisor Engine 720
6503/6503-E/7603                                                                            1 or 2
6506/6506-E/7606                                                                             5 or 6
6509/6509-E                                                                                       5 or 6
6509-NEBS/6509-NEBS-A/OSR-7609                                          5 or 6
Cisco 7609                                                                                         5 or 6
6513/7613                                                                                          7 or 8
Hope to help !!
If helpful do rate
Ganesh.H

Redundant Chassis or SUP/MSFC

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for