3

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 ?

  • Did the answer help you? If yes, then you should accept it, so that it doesn't keep popping up. Alternatively you could provide your own answer and accept that. – user36472 Mar 4 at 8:40
4

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.

  • Alright, for future reference, I will then configure "switch 1 renumber 4" on my new switch before adding it to the stack. – user53632 Mar 1 at 17:31
  • 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. – user36472 Mar 1 at 17:47
  • @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 Mar 1 at 17:49
  • @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. – user36472 Mar 1 at 17:50
  • Just wanted to add that we added the switch this morning. I did configure "switch 1 renumber 4" before adding the switch to the stack and it worked. But now I wonder if I had configured "switch 1 renumber 5" if it would have worked (4 was the first available number) - I'm not 100% convinced the command is taken into account. – user53632 Mar 6 at 7:32

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.