Adding a new switch to a C9300 stack
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
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 Mar 1 at 17:49
Cown
6,66131031
asked Mar 1 at 17:18
user53632user53632
1474
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 Mar 1 at 17:49
Cown
6,66131031
asked Mar 1 at 17:18
user53632user53632
1474
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.
– Cown
Mar 4 at 8:40
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 Mar 1 at 17:49
Cown
6,66131031
asked Mar 1 at 17:18
user53632user53632
1474
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 Mar 1 at 17:49
Cown
6,66131031
asked Mar 1 at 17:18
user53632user53632
1474
edited Mar 1 at 17:49
Cown
6,66131031
asked Mar 1 at 17:18
user53632user53632
1474
edited Mar 1 at 17:49
Cown
6,66131031
edited Mar 1 at 17:49
Cown
6,66131031
edited Mar 1 at 17:49
Cown
6,66131031
6,66131031
asked Mar 1 at 17:18
user53632user53632
1474
asked Mar 1 at 17:18
user53632user53632
1474
asked Mar 1 at 17:18
user53632user53632
1474
1474
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.
– Cown
Mar 4 at 8:40
add a comment |
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.
– Cown
Mar 4 at 8:40
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.
– Cown
Mar 4 at 8:40
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.
– Cown
Mar 4 at 8:40
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 Mar 1 at 17:24
Ron Maupin♦Ron Maupin
67.9k1369126
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 15and thenswitch 2 priority 10-switch 3 priority 8etc. 15 is the highest priority.
– Cown
Mar 1 at 17:47
@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♦
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.
– Cown
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
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 Mar 1 at 17:24
Ron Maupin♦Ron Maupin
67.9k1369126
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 15and thenswitch 2 priority 10-switch 3 priority 8etc. 15 is the highest priority.
– Cown
Mar 1 at 17:47
@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♦
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.
– Cown
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
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 Mar 1 at 17:24
Ron Maupin♦Ron Maupin
67.9k1369126
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 15and thenswitch 2 priority 10-switch 3 priority 8etc. 15 is the highest priority.
– Cown
Mar 1 at 17:47
@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♦
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.
– Cown
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
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 Mar 1 at 17:24
Ron Maupin♦Ron Maupin
67.9k1369126
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 Mar 1 at 17:24
Ron Maupin♦Ron Maupin
67.9k1369126
answered Mar 1 at 17:24
Ron Maupin♦Ron Maupin
67.9k1369126
answered Mar 1 at 17:24
Ron Maupin♦Ron Maupin
67.9k1369126
answered Mar 1 at 17:24
Ron Maupin♦Ron Maupin
67.9k1369126
67.9k1369126
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 15and thenswitch 2 priority 10-switch 3 priority 8etc. 15 is the highest priority.
– Cown
Mar 1 at 17:47
@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♦
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.
– Cown
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
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
Mar 1 at 17:31
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
Mar 1 at 17:47
@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♦
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.
– Cown
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
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
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.– Cown
Mar 1 at 17:47
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
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
@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.
– Cown
Mar 1 at 17:50
@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
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
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
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
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.
– Cown
Mar 4 at 8:40