A mesh domain can contain up to 12 switches.Up to 5 inter-switch meshed hops are allowed in the path connecting two nodes.A fully interconnected mesh domain can contain up to 5 switches."There don't seem to be any other topology restrictions than those above, and links of different speeds can be used. In other words, connect up all the ports you want to provide bandwidth, redundancy, and additional links to reduce latency (hop count), and it'll figure it out.It's not quite VSF as the switches are not made into one virtual switch, but it goes beyond the sophistication of LAGs ("Trunks" in Aruba nomenclature). The advantages over regular inter-switch links (including LAGs) is that optimal routes are automatically recalculated often and that traffic is automatically allocated based on performance.From the document, "Provides significantly better bandwidth utilization than either Spanning Tree Protocol (MSTP) or standard port trunking. Uses redundant links that remain open to carry traffic, removing any single point of failure for disabling the network, and allowing quick responses to individual link failures. This also helps to maximize investments in ports and cabling. Unlike trunked ports, the ports in a switch mesh can be of different types and speeds (10 and 100 Mbps, gigabit, and 10 gigabit). For example, a 10Base-FL port and a 1GB port can be included in the same switch mesh."
parnassus,Thank you for your reply. I take away from your post several points (facts):1. That a peer switch, can have a LAG with links to each VSF member.2. A peer switch cannot have a LAG with links to multiple switches in a single mesh domain.3. A peer switch can have multiple regular (non-LAG) links to multiple switches in a mesh domain (will require a spanning tree algorithm) which will provide redundancy to link-failure but not increase bandwidth. (The use of multiple external links to a mesh with STP is specifically diagrammed out in the documentation link in the first post.)"The fact you can have a peer Switch with multiple single links terminating into different Switches forming the same Mesh domain means that those links are necessarily not concurrently active, isn't it?"I must admit that I do not understand the point you are trying to make in this sentence with the last, "isn't it?" The grammar doesn't quite work out. But yes, that is point #3 above.But anyway, point by point. To #1, this is only an advantage to VSF only if the primary consideration is that the VSF switches are geographically far apart. Otherwise we can do a LAG into a stack (single virtual switch) of either VSF or backplane stacked switches with no difference. The difference is a VSF only switch has much worse topology in the stack itself because it supports only ring or chain. In the case of a 3-switch stack of either a 3810M or 6300M in specific, the former has 80G links between each of the two nodes while the 6300M only has 50G (using one 50G port to connect to each of its neighbors in the ring). With more than 3 in the stack, forget it, mesh is better for multiple interconnect, and even up to 5 nodes, a backplane stack can be fully interconnected. A VSF stack can never be fully interconnected beyond 3 units.Also on point #1, if that peer switch were just part of the mesh, then it can have mesh links to (almost) as many switches in the mesh as it wants and any LAG restrictions/limitations are erased.
Even if your thoughts are accurate and precise, it is somewhat unclear for me
exactly what is it you want to accomplish :), with the new OS CX ?
Multiple path?, back and forth, or a non-stop solution..?
At Aruba, we believe that the most dynamic customer experiences happen at the Edge. Our mission is to deliver innovative solutions that harness data at the Edge to drive powerful business outcomes.
© Copyright 2021 Hewlett Packard Enterprise Development LPAll Rights Reserved.