An apology like this we had to configure spanning tree HAARP link aggregation and other technologies
to try and optimize the way that this topology works as an example we made a switch one route for some
of the lines and then we made switch to a route for other lands.
So we managed to optimize a to forwarding by optimizing spending tree but then to optimize the routing
in this topology we had to configure HSP and then configure switch one as the primary for the same lines
as the as the root switch.
In other words if switch one is the spending tree root or for veel and 10 then we had to make it to
the SAPI primary router for villaine 10.
So in other words we have to optimize both spending tree as well as HAARP to make sure that they are
aligned.
In other words if so which one is the spending tree root for veal and 10 we don't want to make a switch
to the edges of the primary router for the last 10.
We want to match them up to optimize the forwarding.
So it's a lot of additional work that you need to do here.
You need to configure spending.
You need to configure your.
You need to configure LINQ aggregation you've got to match it all up.
It's not very efficient.
Is there a better way of doing this.
And fortunately the answer is yes there is a better way of doing this.
I've done a search in Google for Cisco stacking images and you'll find many images such as the following
showing you examples of Cisco switches being stacked.
Now they are different technologies for doing this.
In other words they are different to stacking technologies.
One of the oldest is stuck wise which was used on the 30 750 switches.
But again if you do a search in Google where you have a look at some of the Cisco documentation you'll
see a lot of examples of different stacking technologies that can be used to stack the Cisco switches.
So what's the advantage of stacking switches in this way.
In brief when you stack switches they appear to be a single switch to the rest of the network.
You configure it as a single switch.
They act as a single switch protocol such as spending tree and CGP see that switch as a single switch.
So again Cisco has various technologies that you can use to stack switches or aggregate shesays.
So we have these terms switch stacking and chessy aggregation separate physical switches work together
and cooperate together to act and appear as a single switch rather than multiple discrete switches.
As an analogy it's as if the switches are acting as blades in a Chessie based switch switch.
Stacking is often used at the Access Layer and chessy aggregation is often used at the distribution
and coleus of a network.
So if you've got multiple access layer switches or multiple distribution or coleus switches rather than
you having to configure each switch individually and configure protocol such a spanning tree the CTP
and so forth you configure multiple physical switches as if they one switch they have a mac address
table.
They run protocols as if they were a single switch and share a MAC Address table.
So when you stack switches at the Access Layer you're literally creating a stack of switches and joined
together via special cables.
So a stack of physical switches in a wiring closet as an example can act as a single switch.
You would manage the stack with a single management IP address.
You would telnet or S-sh to one switch the one that has the management IP address and not have to tell
only two or S-sh to multiple switches.
There's one configuration file which is included across all the physical switches spanning tree CTP
and VTB are running on one switch not on multiple switches the ports on each physical switch appear
to be part of the same logical switch.
In other words you may have four physical switches each having their own physical ports.
But logically you've got one switch with all of those ports.
There's one MAC Address table that references all the ports on all physical switches.
There are some additional advantages but the moral of the story is you have a single virtual switch
that you managing rather than four separate discrete switches.
Now to connect the switches together you use special hardware ports called stacking ports.
Again they are different Siska technologies.
We've got as an example Cisco flex stack and flex stack plus spec'ing technology you would as an example
insert a stacking module in each switch and then connect them with a stacking cable.
Different technologies work on different switches.
So Flex stack and flex stack plus all supported by 29 60 switches such as the 29 60 Yes 29 60 or 29
60 x and 29 60 x or switch families 37 50 switches which are older switches support stack wise.
Now what are these fucking cables.
Do they form a ring between the switches.
In other words the switches are connected in a series with a lost switch connected back to the first
switch as shown in this topology by using full duplex on each link.
The stacking modules and cables create two paths to force data between the physical switches in the
stack the switches use these connections to communicate between the switches in the stack as well as
to Ford frames and perform other overhead functions.