The 24 port would probably be plenty since people have been upgrading to 10G, plus it matches what we have now.
From: MICE Discuss [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Ryan Goldberg
Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2016 4:40 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] EX4200 (1G Switch) Packet Loss -> 10G Participants
provided my work tonight goes as planned I can leave a:
FPC 2 REV 18 750-021255 BQ0209437984 EX4200-48P, 48 POE
CPU BUILTIN BUILTIN FPC CPU
PIC 0 BUILTIN BUILTIN 48x 10/100/1000 Base-T
PIC 1 REV 04 711-026017 CH0209419573 2x 10GE SFP+
in the mice cabinet (or elsewhere).
note: no optics... but I could leave a couple DACs probably
I could leave 24 port non-POE 4200 if preferred. Why do I have 48 port poe switch at 511? So many questions....
Or........ I may have a 3300-24 available, which gives 4x SFP+ instead.
Any preferences whilst I rummage through my oddball grab bag?
From: MICE Discuss <[log in to unmask]> on behalf of Jeremy Lumby <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2016 3:45 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] EX4200 (1G Switch) Packet Loss -> 10G Participants
I am in favor, THANKS GUYS!!!
From: MICE Discuss [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Jason Hanke
Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2016 3:41 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] EX4200 (1G Switch) Packet Loss -> 10G Participants
Compudyne has offered to donate an EX4200 with a 2x10G uplink card to MICE to help the cause.
On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 3:31 PM, Jeremy Lumby <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
I am in favor of a regular layer 2 uplink. I think the main reason I feel this way is it is industry standard, and then the switch has its own forwarding table. We have seen issues in the past where if the link on a high volume port goes down, the MAC gets removed from the forwarding table, and then all of that traffic gets flooded to all other ports until BGP times out. This seems to be especially problematic when it hits the 1G ports.
My vision of a future upgrade would be something along the lines of a 5200, or equiv from another manufacturer that has all of the other switches uplinked to it. Then we would have separate forwarding tables, a place to connect remote switches, as well as something that has some 40G, and 100G capabilities. All of the uplinks would then be easy to monitor/graph without excessive load on the switch. Copper SFP+/QSFP+ cables can be used between switches and they are affordable/easy to come by.
Jeremy
-----Original Message-----
From: MICE Discuss [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Doug McIntyre
Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2016 3:15 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] EX4200 (1G Switch) Packet Loss -> 10G Participants
On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 02:23:00PM -0500, Jeremy Lumby wrote:
> That would make sense, then we are just down to how traffic can leave the 4200 without going across a vcp
Most likely we'd have to kick off (umm. move) the three members that
are fiber 1G connections in the expansion slot on the 4200, get a 10G
card, optics for both sides, etc. Then decide if we are going to run
virtual chassis protocol, or just layer-2 uplink into the two other switches.
Or we move the 19 active 1G copper members + 3 1G fiber members off the 4200
altogether and eat up ports on the 4550 with 19 copper SFPs. Then we wouldn't
have to do "Mixed-mode Virtual-Chassis" then either.
> Although- it looks like so far all the paths with loss seem to have "vcp-1" in them?
As I've stated multiple times, I think since VCP is active/passive,
there is only one active ring around the the VC through VCP-1 now,
and I would expect to see vcp-1 in all paths through the EX4200.
We can swap active and passive with the command I posted previously.
That way we can troubleshoot if there is a port/cable issue, or if it is
an issue with the device itself.
Or it could be a defect in this coderev (although I doubt it).
--
Doug McIntyre <[log in to unmask]>
~.~ ipHouse ~.~
Network Engineer/Provisioning/Jack of all Trades
--
Jay Hanke
CTO
Neutral Path Communications
3 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 204
Mankato, MN 56001
(507) 327-2398 mobile
To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link:
http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1
To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link:
http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1
To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link:
http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1