ExtremeSwitching (EXOS)

Expand all | Collapse all

Provide support for stacking nomenclature when not stacked

Brad Parker

Brad Parker05-05-2020 02:17

Brad Parker

Brad Parker05-05-2020 02:37

  • 1.  Provide support for stacking nomenclature when not stacked

    Posted 05-05-2020 01:53

    Maybe it’s there and I’m missing it. I would LOVE to have EXOS give you an option to use stacking nomenclature on non-stacked switches! We enable stacking all of the time, just to keep our configs consistent regardless of the environment we’re in. The problem is that we lose the stacking ports (especially in SFP+ stacked environments). It would be so much easier if you could always just treat the first unstacked switch as SLOT1 (even when by itself). Anyone else find this a bit annoying? Seems like it would be a fairly simple fix...



  • 2.  RE: Provide support for stacking nomenclature when not stacked

    Posted 05-05-2020 01:55

    I think configure system ports notation in EXOS 30.2 is what you’re looking for!



  • 3.  RE: Provide support for stacking nomenclature when not stacked

    Posted 05-05-2020 02:00

    Drew, I’d like to buy you a beer! However… We don’t get a “configure system” option in our X620’s running 30.3. C’mon man, hook me up! What’s the secret?



  • 4.  RE: Provide support for stacking nomenclature when not stacked

    Posted 05-05-2020 02:11


  • 5.  RE: Provide support for stacking nomenclature when not stacked

    Posted 05-05-2020 02:14

    Perhaps it does not show if you’re in a stack already? There is no “configure system” option at all. Checked another client running 30.4, but they’re stacked too. The “show management” does list the current value, but can’t find a way to change it (grep’d a detailed config too - nothing there).



  • 6.  RE: Provide support for stacking nomenclature when not stacked

    Posted 05-05-2020 02:15

    Yeah, checked an unstacked switch, if you have one available. We don’t want people to not have the SLOT:PORT nomenclature if the units are stacked.



  • 7.  RE: Provide support for stacking nomenclature when not stacked

    Posted 05-05-2020 02:16
    # configure system port notation slot:port
    This command will take effect after the next reboot.
    # show ver
    Image : ExtremeXOS version 30.6.1.11 30.6.1.11-patch1-2 by release-manager
    on Thu Apr 9 14:57:59 EDT 2020

     



  • 8.  RE: Provide support for stacking nomenclature when not stacked

    Posted 05-05-2020 02:17

    The unit I did that on is not stacked.



  • 9.  RE: Provide support for stacking nomenclature when not stacked

    Posted 05-05-2020 02:20

    It makes total sense. Now that I’m looking at the reference, that’s the only subcommand for conf system (felt like there would be more for some reason). This made my night! Ah, the simple things in life...



  • 10.  RE: Provide support for stacking nomenclature when not stacked

    Posted 05-05-2020 02:35

    The beer offer still stands! Thanks for the quick response…  , you’re invited too!



  • 11.  RE: Provide support for stacking nomenclature when not stacked

    Posted 05-05-2020 02:37

    Hooray Beer!



  • 12.  RE: Provide support for stacking nomenclature when not stacked

    Posted 05-05-2020 15:21

    This is a supper cool addition, I have wanted this for years for the same reasons. 

    Does this happen to exist in the 22.x line? I will be checking when I finish the class I am in.

    If it is I will really need to make it over to see you guys the next time I am down in Charlotte for the beer. 



  • 13.  RE: Provide support for stacking nomenclature when not stacked

    Posted 05-05-2020 15:31

    Hey David,

    Nope. This is 30.2 and above only. FYI, any device that can run 22.x can run 30.2.

     

    Brad



  • 14.  RE: Provide support for stacking nomenclature when not stacked

    Posted 05-06-2020 21:30

    I think there is one exception: X770. It doesn't support 30.x at all, but 22.x



  • 15.  RE: Provide support for stacking nomenclature when not stacked

    Posted 05-07-2020 00:41

    ooo. Good point. Thanks for the correction.