switch/stacking question

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

In article <9607ea95.0504080845.3574e79d@posting.google.com>,
cconnell_1@lycos.com (chris-c) writes:
>I have a question about stacking/joining together some 3com
>superstack2 3300 switches.
>
>I have configured the stack of 4 with a stack card in the first switch
>(the base switch) connected to the other 3 via matrix cables.
>
>You can only stack up to 4 switches.
>
>I also have another stack of 4 switches.
>
>My question is the best way to join the 2 together (they are on the
>same lan).
>
>I could just put a crossover cable between the 2 base switches, but
>this means that if the base switch died then the other switches in
>each stack would not communicate with each other.
>
>If I put a crossover cable between each of the switches in each stack
>(as well as the matrix stack setup) then would this create a broadcast
>loop/storm?
>
>What would be the bet way to join them together?

To break the loop you could use the standard spanning tree or the
3com proprietary resilient link feature.

--
Manfred Kwiatkowski kwiatkowski@zrz.tu-berlin.de

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

Chris Hills <blueyondernews@chaz6.com> wrote in message news:<4_p6e.9420$G8.1979@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk>...
> chris-c wrote:
> > What would be the bet way to join them together?
>
> Make sure each stack has a 3300SM, and use a MTRJ-MTRJ multimode fibre
> cable.

Thanks, is that some sort of card? Do you mean each switch in the
stack has to have one of these or just one. Im trying to get around
the single point of failure in case the base switch (with the stack
card in) in the stack fails.

Ideally I would configure a trunk of 4 ports across the 4 switches in
the stack to connect to the other stack but found out you cant do this
(you can only make a trunk on the physical switch - not across
different physical switches)