SummitStack-V & EAPS

[Mrxlazuardin]

Hi,
Is it possible to configure one 10GbE port of 10G version of Summit X440 for SummitStack-V connection and the other one for standard 10GbE connection running EAPS? My target is to have single management (stacking) for each floor and make EAPS ring between floors. The example ilustration for each floor is below.

lower floor <-(10GbE EAPS)- X440 <-(SummitStack-V)-> X440 -(10GbE EAPS)-> upper floor

Best regards,

[Bill_Stritzinge]

Hi,

The stacking configuration for the X440's stacking is based on the PHY that controls the 2x10Gig ports when stacking is enabled these ports are then configured for stacking only using a modified ethernet format. The original design was to allow for one port to be stacking and one port to be usable as an uplink but when the units finally shipped Summitstack-V forces both ports to stacking only. I will pull out a switch and try with the latest XOS but my guess is that it still ships that way.

As to the other question, you cannot add a non-Summitstack-V switch into an existing topology as the stacking protocol is a modified ethernet frame. You cannot also mix stacking topologies per floor as you suggest. There is only one stack directed by one master switch.

Bill

[Mrxlazuardin]

Hi AlexandrP,

Nice to know that it was success even with earlier EXOS. Maybe Extreme guy can tell story behind it.

Anyway, what will happen if I made ring topology of SummitStack-V configured X440 and put one BD8000 inside the ring? Is the SummitStack-V still working? Is BD800 become SummitStack-V member? Is it possible to split SummitStack-V member to be different stack group, let's say a group for each floor on my case.

Best regards,

[Alexandr_P]

Hi.

With earlier EXOS I was succes with that conf. 1 port as alternate stacking port and another as data port.

[Bill_Stritzinge]

Hi,

That configuration is not supported on the X440. If you turn on stacking with SummitStack-V, both 10Gig ports are then configured for stacking. Originally that was the goal but the code was not completed that way.

Bill