We're Sorry, Full Content Access is for Members Only...

If you like to keep on reading, Become a Member Now! Here is why:

  • Learn any CCNA, CCNP and CCIE R&S Topic. Explained As Simple As Possible.
  • Full Access to our 651 Lessons. More Lessons Added Every Week!
  • Content created by Rene Molenaar (CCIE #41726)

445 Sign Ups in the last 30 days

100% Satisfaction Guaranteed!
You may cancel your monthly membership at any time.
No Questions Asked!

Tags: , , ,

Forum Replies

  1. Hi Zaman,

    Switch virtualization is great for redundancy but it also simplifies your switching a bit. You’ll have less spanning-tree to deal with since all switches in the stack are one “logical” switch.

    What you use on the access layer really depends on your design and your budget. Normally we do have redundant connections from the access layer to the distribution layer.


  2. Hi @the.prince.of.nyinyi,

    That’s something I will cover once I start with my Nexus material. Here’s quick example though:


    With VPC, you can configure a port channel on those Nexus 2000s with the physical links that connect to the 5000 switches. From the 2000’s perspective, it will appear as if it’s connected to a single switch.

  3. Hi Rene,
    this is very useful article, and it’s very important topic…thanks


  4. Rene’,

    In part of your discussion, you note that “When one of the distribution layer switches fails, the other one can take over. We don’t have this luxury in the access layer…when either of the switches fails then the other one can’t take over. One way of solving this problem is to create a logical switch.”

    From what I’ve seen, using stackwise still doesn’t provide redundancy at the access layer. Let’s say that the third switch in the stack dies. All users that are plugged into that third switch are now dead in the water, right?. I don’t see how stackwise is

    ... Continue reading in our forum

7 more replies! Ask a question or join the discussion by visiting our Community Forum