How do you guys represent two switches in a stack?

[Joshua Delaughter]

We have two Cisco 2960's in a stack setup. The stack acts as one unit, and has one management IP Address.

I created two separate devices, and I just assigned the IP Address to the master switch. Is there a better way to do this?

[Jeremy Stretch]

That's currently the recommended approach. I actually attempted to implement virtual chassis support recently, but there is a hefty amount of new logic needed to make it work reasonably well. I still want to get it implemented one day, but probably not until we've knocked out some easier wins.

On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 5:24 PM, Joshua Delaughter <joshua.d...@gmail.com> wrote:

We have two Cisco 2960's in a stack setup. The stack acts as one unit, and has one management IP Address.

I created two separate devices, and I just assigned the IP Address to the master switch. Is there a better way to do this?

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "NetBox" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to netbox-discuss+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to netbox-discuss@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/netbox-discuss/94f5f1a1-02ee-45f5-9fcd-704bdd46c6a7%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Dave Noonan]

What's the recommendation for the device name?  I've currently got the switches in a stack named mystacka, mystackb, mystackc, etc.  I'm really not digging that solution but I'd like some way to tie them all together.

On Tuesday, November 8, 2016 at 5:33:48 PM UTC-5, Jeremy Stretch wrote:

That's currently the recommended approach. I actually attempted to implement virtual chassis support recently, but there is a hefty amount of new logic needed to make it work reasonably well. I still want to get it implemented one day, but probably not until we've knocked out some easier wins.

On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 5:24 PM, Joshua Delaughter <joshua.d...@gmail.com> wrote:

We have two Cisco 2960's in a stack setup. The stack acts as one unit, and has one management IP Address.

I created two separate devices, and I just assigned the IP Address to the master switch. Is there a better way to do this?

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "NetBox" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to netbox-discus...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to netbox-...@googlegroups.com.

[Frank P.]

I just call mine SITE-LOC-SW1 (the name of my stack) followed by SITE-LOC-SW1(2), -SW1(3), etc. All ports, management interfaces, etc. all get attached to SW1, while (2), (3), etc. are just to record serial numbers and notes. It's not as elegant as I'd like but at least the info is there.

[John Anderson]

I am a Juniper shop and they designate stack position and role. So I name each device like 170FLT-1F3--N0-RE where 170FLT-1F3 is the name of the stack and this particular device is node 0 and is a routing engine (again, in Juniper world). Also note the double hyphen (--) which is used as a delimiter to easily tell if we are dealing with a stack and where to do a string split to get the name and the node/role.

Be sure to check out https://github.com/digitalocean/netbox/issues/99 and throw in support if you have not already done so.

On Thursday, June 15, 2017 at 6:59:29 PM UTC-4, Dave Noonan wrote:

[Michael Jezierski]

How I do it is -1, -2, in Netbox then interfaces are 1/0/x, 2/0/x etc separately on each device listing.

COLONAMESW1-1 with interfaces 1/0/1 through 1/0/48

COLONAMESW1-2 with interfaces 2/0/1 through 2/0/48

and so forth.

As already mentioned this allows me to enter in separate serial numbers for each Cisco device for easier tracking when it comes to SMARTNET renewal time.

On Tuesday, November 8, 2016 at 5:24:19 PM UTC-5, Joshua Delaughter wrote:

[Rob Paddock]

do you find that doing it this way causes issues when you try joining 2 switches together with a lag connection? set up 2 switches as a virtual chassis and created a Lag interface. I cant assign 1/0/1 and 2/0/1 to the lag interface as they are different devices

[Brian Candler]

You've just resurrected a very old thread, and since then Netbox has gained full virtual chassis support.

You can join the two devices together, and then have a LAG which spans ports on multiple devices - this works fine.

If you *are* using the new support, then you have to explain what specifically what you're doing that isn't work.

With a virtual chassis, essentially all the interfaces of the second device become visible under the master device, so you do all your work there (e.g. create LAG on master, assign interfaces to this LAG)

Note: it may be necessary to rename interfaces *before* you join the device together.  For example, if you created both devices from a device template which has 1/0/1-1/0/24, then on the second device you need to rename all interfaces to 2/0/1-2/0/24 before joining.  There is a bulk rename facility for this: browse to the device; select all the interfaces you want to rename, use the yellow Rename button at the bottom.

[Rob Paddock]

I will have a another look. I have created a virtual device and renamed the second devices. I then created a lag. I could add a 1/0/1 interface from the master but the second device with 2/0/1 wouldn't add to the lag. When I edit the 2/0/1 interface the device the lag couldn't be added to it.

It's a blinding tool. Just wondering if I was doing my something wrong. To be fair it's all pretty straight forward and we'll laid out.

Will have another look

Thanks for getting back to me

[Brian Candler]

When adding the LAG you should do it using the interfaces shown under the *master* device - which will include the interfaces of the secondary device(s).

At worst: destroy the virtual chassis, navigate to the individual devices and check they have distinct interface names (e.g. port 1 is 1/0/1 on the first and 2/0/1 on the second), and then rejoin them into a virtual chassis.