EXOS Stacking X670V-48t (VIM4-40G4X) with X460-G2 (VIM2q)

  • 19 February 2016
  • 9 replies

Userlevel 6

i want to stack the above 2 Switches with 40GB VIM Modules. Regarding Datasheets it should work fine. But one thing i do not keep in mind.
The switch came out of the box with different licenses! So it is not possible to stack this 2 switches together.

See here:
02/19/2016 17:50:18.57 Slot-2: Slot-1 FAILED (1) License Mismatch

02/19/2016 17:50:18.57 Slot-2: Slot-1 has failed for the reason of "License Mismatch".

Slot-2 Stack.4 # sh licenses

Enabled License Level:

Edge Enabled Feature Packs:


Effective License Level:


Slot-2 Stack.5 #

* X670V-48t.1 # sh licenses

Enabled License Level:

Advanced Edge

Enabled Feature Packs:


* X670V-48t.2 #

Is it possible to "downgrade" the X670V to edge license to avoid this stacking problem ? Or is the only way to buy the advanced edge license for the X460-G2 ?


9 replies

Userlevel 7
Hi Matthias,

You can change the license level in the stacking configuration so it will come up properly. Here is an article that explains how to do it.


The additional notes has the command you can use to make this change.

Hope this helps!
Userlevel 6
Userlevel 6
Thanks the main Problem is solved - the 2 switch are in the stack now!

But the wrong switch is master. I define the X670 as master (via a higher prio and the switch himself have a higher imprtance to be master).

So why is now the X460 the master ?

Here the output of the stacking:
Slot-1 Stack.1 > sh stacking
Stack Topology is a Daisy-Chain
Active Topology is a Daisy-Chain
Node MAC Address Slot Stack State Role Flags
------------------ ---- ----------- ------- ---
*00:04:96:99:3b:3a 1 Active Backup CA-
00:04:96:9a:14:a3 2 Active Master CA-
* - Indicates this node
Flags: (C) Candidate for this active topology, (A) Active Node
(O) node may be in Other active topology
Slot-1 Stack.2 >
Slot-1 Stack.2 >
Slot-1 Stack.2 >
Slot-1 Stack.2 >
Slot-1 Stack.2 >
Slot-1 Stack.2 >
Slot-1 Stack.2 > sh stacking configuration
Stack MAC in use: [u]
Node Slot Alternate Alternate
MAC Address Cfg Cur Prio Mgmt IP / Mask Gateway Flags Lic
------------------ --- --- ---- ------------------ --------------- --------- ---
*00:04:96:99:3b:3a 1 1 70 CcEe--iNn Ee
00:04:96:9a:14:a3 2 2 Auto CcEe--iNn --
* - Indicates this node
Flags: (C) master-Capable in use, (c) master-capable is configured,
(E) Stacking is currently Enabled, (e) Stacking is configured Enabled,
(M) Stack MAC in use, (m) Stack MACs configured and in use are the same,
(i) Stack MACs configured and in use are not the same or unknown,
(N) Enhanced protocol is in use, (n) Enhanced protocol is configured,
(-) Not in use or not configured
License level restrictions: (C) Core, (A) Advanced edge, or (E) Edge in use,
(c) Core, (a) Advanced edge, or (e) Edge configured,
(-) Not in use or not configured
Slot-1 Stack.3 >

Userlevel 7
Hi Matthias,

When you made the license level change it required you to reboot slot 1. Slot 2 is master-capable and became the new master. Once slot boots up again it will not "steal" the master role from slot 2. It will simply become whatever role is needed. If backup is available it will become backup. If master and backup are already taken then it will become a standby node. The switch that is master typically does not matter but if you want slot 1 to take over the master role you can issue the command "run failover" on the new master or just reboot slot 2.
Userlevel 6
Couple questions on this.

Isn't stacking a 670 and 460 a bad idea? Doesn't the 670 get limited by the 460?

Was it your intention to run the stack in a daisy chain, or did you possibly cross the cables?
Userlevel 7
Hi David,

In this case the x670 will be the limiter considering the x460 is a G2. The intended use of the stack is a good question but you are correct in saying that you are limited by the resources available on the switches.
Userlevel 4
we built this combination very often and had no problems with reaching any limits. as long as you stay in the same class of products it works flawless.
Userlevel 7
X460G2 is preferred over X670V, because it has a better control plane (better CPU). Master role is CPU intensive, so it's logical to set the best CPU as Master. In terms of dataplane, no matter which one is the Master.

Mixing x460G2 with x670V is not a bad idea, especially considering SummitStack-V160. That's a lot of bandwidth available for stacking links.

As for the various HW limits, please note that EXOS is smart enough to optimize resource usage. It's NOT as simple as "down to the lowest capable".
Userlevel 6
Thanks to all of you for giving me high valueable advices!

The stack is working now - how it should be ...