 |
 |
All, 3300's Can't join a Mixed 45**. We'd have to monitor it separately. Troubleshooting, monitoring and management would be easier with another 4200/4500/4550. Thank you, *Levi Pederson* Mankato Networks LLC cell | 612.481.0769 work | 612.787.7392 [log in to unmask] On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 10:04 PM, Ben Wiechman <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > We may have a couple EX3300 as well. I can check tomorrow if there is any > interest. > > On Sep 20, 2016 4:50 PM, "Ryan Goldberg" <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > >> 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 >> >> [log in to unmask] >> >> www.neutralpath.net >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> 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 >> > > ------------------------------ > > To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: > http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1 >