02-05-2017 07:40 PM - edited 02-05-2017 08:24 PM
I could not find the document to configure Aruba 2930F to run VSF function. Just found only 5400R. Another thing if using VSF, will L2/L3 load balacing (without VRRP) in 2930F benefit?
02-06-2017 11:49 AM
VSF functionality was added to the 2930F in the WC.16.03 release; configuration instructions can be found in Chapter 30 of the Management and Configuration Guide for WC.16.03 (Page 598).
Load balancing across trunked links (e.g., a trunk distributed across a VSF fabric) is covered on page 139-140 of the same document; the switch supports load balancing based on L2/L3/L4 port information.
Matthew Fern | Technical Marketing Engineer, Campus Networking
Aruba, a Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company
02-08-2017 12:38 AM
I was wondering how to enable VSF ring topology on three switches while using the link 1 and link 2 command.
when i try on 2 or 4 switches i encounter no issue, while using three, the topology ends up in chain only topology. i must be missing something, any help will be appreciated.
02-08-2017 03:02 AM
Three switches in a ring is certainly a supported and recommended VSF topology for the 2930F.
To confirm your configuration, a 'show vsf topology' and 'show vsf link detail' will display each member and the ports it is expecting to peer on. This output will also show whether each switchport has been successfully in an UP state, or unsuccessful DOWN state.
If all ports are showing up, the 'show vsf' command should display a VSF Topology of Ring, and state of Active.
Lastly, make sure you haven't provisioned another switch as a 4th member of the 3-member VSF, which will show a 'missing' status in the 'show vsf' output.
Let us know how you go.
02-08-2017 04:07 AM
Thanks for the reply David,
Yep, i have seen that three switches in VSF are supported as ring topologie but i could not get there for some reason, i got only chain.
To get more precision, i would like to undestand what link 1 and link 2 refer to, what role they are playing. Is it an obligation to get link 1 against link 1 between two members ? or link 1 against link 2 would be considered as good ?
I am asking this question since in documentation the links always form 1 to 1 and 2 against 2. i am wondering why.
02-09-2017 10:51 PM
No, the links do not need to match between members. Link 1 will happily connect to Link 2 when you manually configure the switches. If it's Auto-VSF, I have noticed it will use the same link number. We might need to whack something in the doco to make this clear.
(admittidly) I only have two 2930F in my lab at the moment; I'll track down a third and test out auto-VSF with three switches in a ring topology to make sure it comes up without having to manually configure it.
02-10-2017 02:36 AM
I am glad to annouce that the problem have been solved. I managed to manually cofigure the three switches topology under ring, since i am not a fan of automation. I actually compared the links to IRF logical ports since both solutions belong to the same house hold, after that, the solution made more sense. Effectively i would believe the doc should be adapted accordingly since we can easily think the VSF is configured by pair.
Thanks for your assistance.
02-12-2017 09:33 PM
Great to hear. Lastly, adding a third member in a ring topology was as easy as provisioning the link ports in the existing 2 member VSF topology and adding my switch to the correct ports.
Third switch automatically was added and my topology changed from a chain to a ring. The Link IDs, and shown below, do not need to match on both sides.
I hope that helps.