 Badger3kWe Don't Need No Stinkin BadgersPremium
join:2001-09-27
Franklin, OH | Switch/Vlan/Routing issue So I have a client with 2 switch stacks made up of Dell PowerConnect 6248P switches.
Stack 1 (2 Switches) is on the first floor.
Stack 2 (5 Switches) is on the second floor in the server room. This is the stack that all servers and the firewall plug into.
It seems that both stacks are configured for Layer 3 and setup to do routing for the VLANs. The problem is, right now it seems that Stack 1 is routing everything. Stack 2 is not manageable from the LAN unless you are plugged into specific port. On both stacks, the IPs assigned to the VLANs are the same. So VLAN 100 is assigned xxx.xxx.100.1 on Stack 1 and Stack 2. All of the VLAN IPs send me to Stack 1, unless I'm plugged in to the specific management port on Stack 2. Then if I access any of the assigned VLAN IPs it takes me to Stack 2.
How are there not IP conflicts on the network? My goal is to get Stack 2 manageable from the LAN so we can start monitoring it but I'm afraid since all of the VLAN IPs are exactly the same that if I make any change to the management interface it will end up causing more issues. Ideally I'd like to just have everything sent up to Stack 2 and have it do all the routing, but that's not real important at this point.
I've attached each of the configs if someone wants to take a look.
--
Team Discovery: Project Hope |
|
Reviews:
 ·Verizon FiOS
| I know it's not the solution, but first thing you should consider is upgrading your firmware, there's been a lot of fixes from the current version you run.
»www.dell.com/support/drivers/us/···93467328 |
|
 tubbynetreminds me of the danse russePremium,MVM
join:2008-01-16
Chandler, AZ
kudos:1 | reply to Badger3k
said by Badger3k:The problem is, right now it seems that Stack 1 is routing everything. Stack 2 is not manageable from the LAN unless you are plugged into specific port. On both stacks, the IPs assigned to the VLANs are the same. So VLAN 100 is assigned xxx.xxx.100.1 on Stack 1 and Stack 2. All of the VLAN IPs send me to Stack 1, unless I'm plugged in to the specific management port on Stack 2. Then if I access any of the assigned VLAN IPs it takes me to Stack 2.
while i'm not a dell network guy (i work on the stuff with the bridge logos) -- this config is seriously borked.
if you have a layer-3 switch -- you should have interface vlans for those networks and configure them as such. this is how switch 1 is configured.
if you have a layer-2 switch, you should configure it only for a single interface vlan (as this is a "virtual" interface to assign ip address information) but it shouldn't have ip routing enabled.
if you're looking for gateway redundancy (often used in multihomed environments) -- a first hop redundancy protocol (fhrp) like vrrp would be used in your case.
you need to fix the ip address conflicts.
q.
--
"...if I in my north room dance naked, grotesquely before my mirror waving my shirt round my head and singing softly to myself..." |
|
Badger3kWe Don't Need No Stinkin BadgersPremium
join:2001-09-27
Franklin, OH | reply to Badger3k
Because there isn't enough understanding of how the switches are setup, they are afraid to upgrade the firmware... don't ask why but we've brought it up a couple times now.
The plan for Monday will be to upgrade the firmware on Stack 1 and change all of the VLAN IPs to end in .2 instead of .1. Probably not the end all solution, but it will at least address the issue at hand and make things a little easier to follow and understand.
--
Team Discovery: Project Hope |
|
|
|
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
| reply to Badger3k
I had problems with layer 3 routing using different firmware revisions on the 6248 switches
Are you running multiple internet gateways?
I run L3 on those switches between 2 buildings, each building has it's own internet connection and but are connected through gigabit wireless for the LAN, the end users are on 344x & 354x believe it or not. I split both locations with their dhcp, this way i can track where things are.
If I get a chance I will download my config and compare it to yours. |
|
| reply to Badger3k
Was going to ask which port on Switch-1 worked that Switch-2 could be managed.
I'm with tubby in that the configs are SERIOUSLY borked, and the other serious question that needs to be asked
is how is this SUPPOSED to work? Layer-2 only? Layer-3 only? One Layer-3 stack and one layer-2 stack? Is there
trunking going on? Is trunking even set up right?
Taking a quick look at the configs, I'm also wondering are all the VLANs supposed to be shared between the
two switch stacks? S1 is missing VLANs 125 and 150, and you'll want to doublecheck the trunk configs as
S1 does not allow these two VLANs across the portchannel while S2 does.
S1
configure
vlan database
vlan 66,100,105,110,115,120
S2
configure
vlan database
vlan 66,100,105,110,115,120,125,150
Regards |
|
Badger3kWe Don't Need No Stinkin BadgersPremium
join:2001-09-27
Franklin, OH | reply to Badger3k
I'm not sure what the intent of the current config is or was.
Trunking is setup on the port channel ports which are the uplink between Stack 1 and Stack 2. The only VLANs that are being used from what I can tell are 66, 100, 105, and 110. I haven't found anything else on any of the other ones.
If/when we get the chance to redo the configs from scratch, Stack 1 will just be Layer 2 and Stack 2 will be Layer 3. After some more digging over the weekend, I found that traffic bounces between the stacks. So on Server 1 with a gateway of .100.1 (VLAN IP) I will route through Stack 1 but then on Server 2 I will be routing through Stack 2. So definitely a mess.
The plan tonight is still to upgrade Stack 1 with the latest firmware and change all of the VLAN IPs to .2.
--
Team Discovery: Project Hope |
|
Badger3kWe Don't Need No Stinkin BadgersPremium
join:2001-09-27
Franklin, OH | reply to Badger3k
Updated the firmware on Stack 1 and it started spewing duplicate IP/ARP errors on the console. As soon as I changed the VLAN IPs, those stopped and everything seems to be working like "normal". Wonder if that was an issue with the previous firmware?
--
Team Discovery: Project Hope |
|
| reply to Badger3k
said by Badger3k:I'm not sure what the intent of the current config is or was. Documentation... from an obscure dialect that roughly translates as "...for some other poor schmuck to do."
Was the firmware on all devices even matched before the upgrade?
Regards |
|
Badger3kWe Don't Need No Stinkin BadgersPremium
join:2001-09-27
Franklin, OH | Yea, the firmware was 2.2.0.3 on both stacks before the upgrade. Scheduled to upgrade Stack 2 tomorrow, so we'll see what interesting things come up this time.
--
Team Discovery: Project Hope |
|
