[c-nsp] EMI image on 3750-48PS

[Charles J. Boening]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


You will get a software mismatch error if they don't all match and you
won't get working ports for any switch but the master.  I went through
the same thing and I think that's how it worked.  I do remember getting
the software mismatch and I'm pretty sure I remember ports on the slave
not working.

Given that, I'd also say if you want EMI on all switches in the stack,
then you should have EMI licenses for all switches in the stack to be
legal.


Charlie




> -----Original Message-----
> From: cisco-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net 
> [mailto:cisco-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Jeff Kell
> Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2006 6:36 PM
> To: Asbjorn Hojmark - Lists
> Cc: cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
> Subject: Re: [c-nsp] EMI image on 3750-48PS
> 
> Asbjorn Hojmark - Lists wrote:
> >> If full dynamic IP routing is required on a stack of two 3750-48PS 
> >> switches utilizing the stacking cable, is the EMI image 
> required on 
> >> both switches or can one have the standard image?
> >>     
> 
> >> >From a redundancy viewpoint, it would be a bad idea to have IP
> >> Services on only one of them...
> >> Also, it's easier to administer (e.g. to upgrade software), when 
> >> they're running the same software.
> 
> So what is the bottom line?  Can you mix EMI/SMI in the same 
> stack or not?  If you lose the [last] EMI does it crash in a 
> spectacular manner?  :-)
> 
> Jeff
> 
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net 
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
> archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
> 
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (MingW32)

iD8DBQFEohyvcGGHuFdGSWARAirwAJ4m6vFaKX12pYCVM4nbwRKwWo+b+QCggudy
ZhRg62X8XLbRALd0h8uXbhU=
=6j0Q
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----