Adding a new switch to a C9300 stackHelp with VLANs, ACLs, DHCP on SG-300 Layer 3 switchWhat are the reasons...
Why does a metal block make a shrill sound but not a wooden block upon hammering?
Can you earn endless XP using a Flameskull and its self-revival feature?
Is there a standard way to treat events with unknown times (missing time data)?
Am I a Rude Number?
Why did this image turn out darker?
How to acknowledge an embarrassing job interview, now that I work directly with the interviewer?
What to do when being responsible for data protection in your lab, yet advice is ignored?
What is a jet (unit) shown in Windows 10 calculator?
Program that converts a number to a letter of the alphabet
Can I write a book of my D&D game?
What is this metal M-shaped device for?
Adding a new switch to a C9300 stack
Why are the books in the Game of Thrones citadel library shelved spine inwards?
Why is working on the same position for more than 15 years not a red flag?
Can we use the stored gravitational potential energy of a building to produce power?
Can an insurance company drop you after receiving a bill and refusing to pay?
Disable the ">" operator in Rstudio linux terminal
Strange Sign on Lab Door
How does Arcane Armament interact with the Artillerist Artificer's Wand Prototype feature?
Why Normality assumption in linear regression
What is the in-universe cost of a TIE fighter?
What was the earliest start time of a Catholic mass before 1957?
Caruana vs Carlsen game 10 (WCC) why not 18...Nxb6?
Using only 1s, make 29 with the minimum number of digits
Adding a new switch to a C9300 stack
Help with VLANs, ACLs, DHCP on SG-300 Layer 3 switchWhat are the reasons for not putting multiple subnets on the same VLAN?Addition of new switch to an existing stackOne of a switch in a stack is frozenCisco 3750 switch stack with different IOS imagesAdding a switch to provide redundancy3Com 5500G EI Switch Stack ConfigurationVLAN trunk between Single Port Machine to SwitchAddition of new switch to an existing 3850 stackWhat happens to traffic when switch monitor port is congested?
We currently have a stack of Catalyst 9300, like this :
SW1 (master)
SW2
SW3
We plan on adding a 4th switch, SW4, but in between SW2 and SW3. This would give:
SW1
SW2
SW4
SW3
My question is : would that impact our configuration ? What I mean is that as it stands, port 1 on SW3 has configuration and is referenced as Gi3/0/1. If SW3 now becomes the switch at the bottom, would we still address the port as Gi3/0/1 or as Gi4/0/1 ? And would the Gi3/0/1 configuration now be applied on the newly added switch in the middle, or remain active on the switch at the bottom ?
Would we need to renumber one of the switch ?
switch cisco-catalyst stacking
edited 3 hours ago
Cown
6,29131030
asked 4 hours ago
user53632user53632
1263
add a comment |
We currently have a stack of Catalyst 9300, like this :
SW1 (master)
SW2
SW3
We plan on adding a 4th switch, SW4, but in between SW2 and SW3. This would give:
SW1
SW2
SW4
SW3
My question is : would that impact our configuration ? What I mean is that as it stands, port 1 on SW3 has configuration and is referenced as Gi3/0/1. If SW3 now becomes the switch at the bottom, would we still address the port as Gi3/0/1 or as Gi4/0/1 ? And would the Gi3/0/1 configuration now be applied on the newly added switch in the middle, or remain active on the switch at the bottom ?
Would we need to renumber one of the switch ?
switch cisco-catalyst stacking
edited 3 hours ago
Cown
6,29131030
asked 4 hours ago
user53632user53632
1263
add a comment |
We currently have a stack of Catalyst 9300, like this :
SW1 (master)
SW2
SW3
We plan on adding a 4th switch, SW4, but in between SW2 and SW3. This would give:
SW1
SW2
SW4
SW3
My question is : would that impact our configuration ? What I mean is that as it stands, port 1 on SW3 has configuration and is referenced as Gi3/0/1. If SW3 now becomes the switch at the bottom, would we still address the port as Gi3/0/1 or as Gi4/0/1 ? And would the Gi3/0/1 configuration now be applied on the newly added switch in the middle, or remain active on the switch at the bottom ?
Would we need to renumber one of the switch ?
switch cisco-catalyst stacking
edited 3 hours ago
Cown
6,29131030
asked 4 hours ago
user53632user53632
1263
We currently have a stack of Catalyst 9300, like this :
SW1 (master)
SW2
SW3
We plan on adding a 4th switch, SW4, but in between SW2 and SW3. This would give:
SW1
SW2
SW4
SW3
My question is : would that impact our configuration ? What I mean is that as it stands, port 1 on SW3 has configuration and is referenced as Gi3/0/1. If SW3 now becomes the switch at the bottom, would we still address the port as Gi3/0/1 or as Gi4/0/1 ? And would the Gi3/0/1 configuration now be applied on the newly added switch in the middle, or remain active on the switch at the bottom ?
Would we need to renumber one of the switch ?
switch cisco-catalyst stacking
switch cisco-catalyst stacking
edited 3 hours ago
Cown
6,29131030
asked 4 hours ago
user53632user53632
1263
edited 3 hours ago
Cown
6,29131030
asked 4 hours ago
user53632user53632
1263
edited 3 hours ago
Cown
6,29131030
edited 3 hours ago
Cown
6,29131030
edited 3 hours ago
Cown
6,29131030
6,29131030
asked 4 hours ago
user53632user53632
1263
asked 4 hours ago
user53632user53632
1263
asked 4 hours ago
user53632user53632
1263
1263
add a comment |
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
The order in which the switches are physically connected does not matter to the configured switch number. The switches are connected in a loop, so there is really no top or bottom, even if there is a physical top and bottom in a rack.
If you correctly configure the switches, you would have specifically set the switch numbers in the switch before building the stack, and adding a switch anywhere in the stack will not change the switch numbers, so the interface numbers will stay the same.
You should also specifically set the switch priorities, which do not need to relate to the switch numbers. For example, Switch 3 could be the master, and Switch 1 could have the next highest switch priority, becoming the master if Switch 3 goes down.
answered 4 hours ago
Ron Maupin♦Ron Maupin
66.2k1369123
Alright, for future reference, I will then configure "switch 1 renumber 4" on my new switch before adding it to the stack.
– user53632
4 hours ago
You set the switch priority using, for example:switch 1 priority 15and thenswitch 2 priority 10-switch 3 priority 8etc. 15 is the highest priority.
– Cown
3 hours ago
@Cown, one interesting thing we have run into is our Operations group deciding that no switch should be set to15, so we start with14and go down from there. I'm not sure of the reason for the decision, but it may be that they would want to put in a higher priority switch at a later time for some reason.
– Ron Maupin♦
3 hours ago
@RonMaupin i guess that's a good idea. We've always used 15 and never had problems. Pretty straight forward to change a broken one too.
– Cown
3 hours ago
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "496"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fnetworkengineering.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f57325%2fadding-a-new-switch-to-a-c9300-stack%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
The order in which the switches are physically connected does not matter to the configured switch number. The switches are connected in a loop, so there is really no top or bottom, even if there is a physical top and bottom in a rack.
If you correctly configure the switches, you would have specifically set the switch numbers in the switch before building the stack, and adding a switch anywhere in the stack will not change the switch numbers, so the interface numbers will stay the same.
You should also specifically set the switch priorities, which do not need to relate to the switch numbers. For example, Switch 3 could be the master, and Switch 1 could have the next highest switch priority, becoming the master if Switch 3 goes down.
answered 4 hours ago
Ron Maupin♦Ron Maupin
66.2k1369123
Alright, for future reference, I will then configure "switch 1 renumber 4" on my new switch before adding it to the stack.
– user53632
4 hours ago
You set the switch priority using, for example:switch 1 priority 15and thenswitch 2 priority 10-switch 3 priority 8etc. 15 is the highest priority.
– Cown
3 hours ago
@Cown, one interesting thing we have run into is our Operations group deciding that no switch should be set to15, so we start with14and go down from there. I'm not sure of the reason for the decision, but it may be that they would want to put in a higher priority switch at a later time for some reason.
– Ron Maupin♦
3 hours ago
@RonMaupin i guess that's a good idea. We've always used 15 and never had problems. Pretty straight forward to change a broken one too.
– Cown
3 hours ago
add a comment |
The order in which the switches are physically connected does not matter to the configured switch number. The switches are connected in a loop, so there is really no top or bottom, even if there is a physical top and bottom in a rack.
If you correctly configure the switches, you would have specifically set the switch numbers in the switch before building the stack, and adding a switch anywhere in the stack will not change the switch numbers, so the interface numbers will stay the same.
You should also specifically set the switch priorities, which do not need to relate to the switch numbers. For example, Switch 3 could be the master, and Switch 1 could have the next highest switch priority, becoming the master if Switch 3 goes down.
answered 4 hours ago
Ron Maupin♦Ron Maupin
66.2k1369123
Alright, for future reference, I will then configure "switch 1 renumber 4" on my new switch before adding it to the stack.
– user53632
4 hours ago
You set the switch priority using, for example:switch 1 priority 15and thenswitch 2 priority 10-switch 3 priority 8etc. 15 is the highest priority.
– Cown
3 hours ago
@Cown, one interesting thing we have run into is our Operations group deciding that no switch should be set to15, so we start with14and go down from there. I'm not sure of the reason for the decision, but it may be that they would want to put in a higher priority switch at a later time for some reason.
– Ron Maupin♦
3 hours ago
@RonMaupin i guess that's a good idea. We've always used 15 and never had problems. Pretty straight forward to change a broken one too.
– Cown
3 hours ago
add a comment |
The order in which the switches are physically connected does not matter to the configured switch number. The switches are connected in a loop, so there is really no top or bottom, even if there is a physical top and bottom in a rack.
If you correctly configure the switches, you would have specifically set the switch numbers in the switch before building the stack, and adding a switch anywhere in the stack will not change the switch numbers, so the interface numbers will stay the same.
You should also specifically set the switch priorities, which do not need to relate to the switch numbers. For example, Switch 3 could be the master, and Switch 1 could have the next highest switch priority, becoming the master if Switch 3 goes down.
answered 4 hours ago
Ron Maupin♦Ron Maupin
66.2k1369123
The order in which the switches are physically connected does not matter to the configured switch number. The switches are connected in a loop, so there is really no top or bottom, even if there is a physical top and bottom in a rack.
If you correctly configure the switches, you would have specifically set the switch numbers in the switch before building the stack, and adding a switch anywhere in the stack will not change the switch numbers, so the interface numbers will stay the same.
You should also specifically set the switch priorities, which do not need to relate to the switch numbers. For example, Switch 3 could be the master, and Switch 1 could have the next highest switch priority, becoming the master if Switch 3 goes down.
answered 4 hours ago
Ron Maupin♦Ron Maupin
66.2k1369123
answered 4 hours ago
Ron Maupin♦Ron Maupin
66.2k1369123
answered 4 hours ago
Ron Maupin♦Ron Maupin
66.2k1369123
answered 4 hours ago
Ron Maupin♦Ron Maupin
66.2k1369123
66.2k1369123
Alright, for future reference, I will then configure "switch 1 renumber 4" on my new switch before adding it to the stack.
– user53632
4 hours ago
You set the switch priority using, for example:switch 1 priority 15and thenswitch 2 priority 10-switch 3 priority 8etc. 15 is the highest priority.
– Cown
3 hours ago
@Cown, one interesting thing we have run into is our Operations group deciding that no switch should be set to15, so we start with14and go down from there. I'm not sure of the reason for the decision, but it may be that they would want to put in a higher priority switch at a later time for some reason.
– Ron Maupin♦
3 hours ago
@RonMaupin i guess that's a good idea. We've always used 15 and never had problems. Pretty straight forward to change a broken one too.
– Cown
3 hours ago
add a comment |
Alright, for future reference, I will then configure "switch 1 renumber 4" on my new switch before adding it to the stack.
– user53632
4 hours ago
You set the switch priority using, for example:switch 1 priority 15and thenswitch 2 priority 10-switch 3 priority 8etc. 15 is the highest priority.
– Cown
3 hours ago
@Cown, one interesting thing we have run into is our Operations group deciding that no switch should be set to15, so we start with14and go down from there. I'm not sure of the reason for the decision, but it may be that they would want to put in a higher priority switch at a later time for some reason.
– Ron Maupin♦
3 hours ago
@RonMaupin i guess that's a good idea. We've always used 15 and never had problems. Pretty straight forward to change a broken one too.
– Cown
3 hours ago
Alright, for future reference, I will then configure "switch 1 renumber 4" on my new switch before adding it to the stack.
– user53632
4 hours ago
Alright, for future reference, I will then configure "switch 1 renumber 4" on my new switch before adding it to the stack.
– user53632
4 hours ago
You set the switch priority using, for example:
switch 1 priority 15 and then switch 2 priority 10 - switch 3 priority 8 etc. 15 is the highest priority.– Cown
3 hours ago
You set the switch priority using, for example:
switch 1 priority 15 and then switch 2 priority 10 - switch 3 priority 8 etc. 15 is the highest priority.– Cown
3 hours ago
@Cown, one interesting thing we have run into is our Operations group deciding that no switch should be set to
15, so we start with 14 and go down from there. I'm not sure of the reason for the decision, but it may be that they would want to put in a higher priority switch at a later time for some reason.– Ron Maupin♦
3 hours ago
@Cown, one interesting thing we have run into is our Operations group deciding that no switch should be set to
15, so we start with 14 and go down from there. I'm not sure of the reason for the decision, but it may be that they would want to put in a higher priority switch at a later time for some reason.– Ron Maupin♦
3 hours ago
@RonMaupin i guess that's a good idea. We've always used 15 and never had problems. Pretty straight forward to change a broken one too.
– Cown
3 hours ago
@RonMaupin i guess that's a good idea. We've always used 15 and never had problems. Pretty straight forward to change a broken one too.
– Cown
3 hours ago
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Network Engineering Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fnetworkengineering.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f57325%2fadding-a-new-switch-to-a-c9300-stack%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
