is it possible to have a XS40 (4.0.2.x) and a XI52 (5.0.0.x) interface in the same standby peer group? From a technical an support point of view? Has anyone done this? The only requirement I've read is that they had to be in the same subnet. Thanks and greetings, Uli.
This topic has been locked.
5 replies Latest Post - 2013-02-25T08:26:46Z by momasa
Pinned topic Standby group
Answered question This question has been answered.
Unanswered question This question has not been answered yet.
Updated on 2013-02-25T08:26:46Z at 2013-02-25T08:26:46Z by momasa
swlinn 100000E7QE1327 PostsACCEPTED ANSWER
Re: Standby group2013-01-28T15:27:50Z in response to momasaI'm not aware of any reason that you can't do this as long as the IPs are in the same subnet. However, I'm with Doyle on this. What is your use case? Given the capabilities of the XI-52 are greater than the XS-40, your services on the XI may not be portable to the XS, so you can't failover for those.
Re: Standby group2013-01-30T08:46:35Z in response to swlinnHello, thanks for your answers.
We consider to do this for migrating to XI52 devices. When rebooting the "old" XS40 we switch the traffic to a "new" XI52 peer group member. If the wsp works we remove the XS40 interfaces from the standby groop.
Doyler86 2700040UFD91 Posts
Re: Standby group2013-02-25T08:26:46Z in response to Doyler86Hello, if anybody is interested in. We have successfully switched the traffic from an "old" XS40 to an "new" XI52 by putting them in the same standby group. As described in the documentation they must be in the same subnetwork. In addition we use MAC address failover instead the now default ARP. Obviously it works :-). We planned to force the switch by disabling the "old" interface, but it seems to be sufficient to apply/save a pseude-change in the standby configuration tab of the active interface. No idea if there are any (dis)advantages for one of the two.