× NETGEAR is aware of a growing number of phone and online scams. To learn how to stay safe click here.
Orbi WiFi 7 RBE973
Reply

Re: Two Active Switches With Redundant Uplink

Josh_Manton
Guide

Two Active Switches With Redundant Uplink

Hi,

I am looking to connect both switches to my Firewalla each on port one. I am also looking to create a LAG between the two switches on the sfp ports. I am using the default vlan to assign ip addresses to the management port of the switches using dhcp. I also have a single vlan 20 for the remaining ports (also assigned via dhcp on different subnet from vlan 1) on the switches. My sfp lag between the two switches is a trunk for vlan 20. What I cannot figure out the correct STP (RSTP or MSTP) settings to prevent the switches from freaking out (rapid light blinking). The switches should know that all vlan 20 are routable without going through the firewalla and are acceptable via the connected LAG. Only the default vlan 1 should get routed via port 1 and any ip not on vlan 20. Also note that all of vlan 20 is on the same subnet. The firewalla also supports tree spanning which is turned on.
Message 1 of 10
schumaku
Guru

Re: Two Active Switches With Redundant Uplink

These MS510TXM are not L3 routers. Of course, you can configure two or more VLANs. Don't know anything what should be special about your firewall and it's port 1. 

 

Typical cause for loops could be failed attempts to configure LAGs for example. 

 

Appears somehow you managed to create a loop on your network. Impossible to tell based on what you posted.

Message 2 of 10
Josh_Manton
Guide

Re: Two Active Switches With Redundant Uplink

No, the switches are not L3, but port 2 on the FW is connected to one switch and port 3 to the other switch. The switches are connected via SFP. The traffic from the FW is Trunk VLAN 2 & 3. The SFP link is also Trunk 2 & 3. I would think that MSTP could prevent loops?
Message 3 of 10
Josh_Manton
Guide

Re: Two Active Switches With Redundant Uplink

To answer my own question:

 

I did not need to enable MSTP since each switch is 1 hop from the router. What I needed to do is under, Switching => STP, enable the option for "Forward BPDU while STP Disabled" and disable "Spanning Tree State". This allows the router to receive the packets that it is sending out and properly map out the network.

Message 4 of 10
schumaku
Guru

Re: Two Active Switches With Redundant Uplink


@Josh_Manton wrote:

I did not need to enable MSTP since each switch is 1 hop from the router.

Wild guess: These two router ports which are supposed to seamless connect both switches, providing a single STP environment, or for the allows to run two MSTP entities are mainly L3 router ports, without much L2 support - or the L2 STP/MSTP config on your router requires a review.

 


@Josh_Manton wrote:

What I needed to do is under, Switching => STP, enable the option for "Forward BPDU while STP Disabled" and disable "Spanning Tree State". This allows the router to receive the packets that it is sending out and properly map out the network.


With al due respect, this reads like a hack, not a solution.

Message 5 of 10
Josh_Manton
Guide

Re: Two Active Switches With Redundant Uplink

No offense taken. It is possible that keeping STP on is fine, but not MSTP because the firewall (firewalla) only supports standard STP which is probably RSTP. It does not support MSTP. Since I don’t have an actual tree, more of a circle, I don’t think I need to enable STP on the switches. What do you think? The two firewall ports are each multi-honed, 2 subnets separated by vlans. Each subnet has STP enabled.

Does this still sound like a hack?
Message 6 of 10
schumaku
Guru

Re: Two Active Switches With Redundant Uplink

Much easier would be to configure firewalla with multiple ports bridged into a single LAN, and connect these physical ports to one of the switches each.

 

For this purpose, STP must be enabled on the firewalla on these single LAN for the two bridged ports. This would not make redundancy, but allow two dedicated uplink ports connected to the firewall. 

 

As you have just one active firewall, I'm a little bit lost on how you expect to configure a redundant network. Sure, you could make up a loop and interconnect the two switches direct, permitting you have at lest STP, better some more advanced RSTP to avoid these long recovery times - however, this firewall does not seem to support RSTP.

 

As STP failover does take 20..30 seconds or more, its not uncommon your network would be blocked fr about 25 seconds following an STP change. https://help.firewalla.com/hc/en-us/articles/14486004537235-Device-is-slow-to-get-an-IP-address-Span... 

 

Message 7 of 10
Josh_Manton
Guide

Re: Two Active Switches With Redundant Uplink

It turns out you were 100% correct, it was a hack.

 

Upon reading this post I made a few changes:

https://help.firewalla.com/hc/en-us/community/posts/360053051193-New-device-setup-Question-for-GOLD-

 

I decided I did not want to get into the complexity of a loop system, so I elected for a tree (more like a branch).

 

Firewalla (fw) => MS510TXM (s1) => MS510TXM (s2)

 

LAG from fw => s1

LAG from s1 => s2

 

I have MSTP enabled on s1 and s2

 

I let the switches auto populate Port Path Cost, and everything just worked.

 

Things i've learned (which I believe are correct):

1. If STP is not enabled, the up-stream switches wont learn the path to ports on the down-stream switches. I originally assumed that STP was only to block/configure loops.

 

2. Creating a loop network is more complicated. It is probably easier if my Firewall was Netgear. My first and only attempt to create a loop failed for two reasons: 1) I did not know what I was doing. 2) My connections from my Firewall to each of the 2 Switches was 2.5Gib while the connection between the two Switches was 10Gib. This is non-standard in the enterprise world and I've learned that STP takes into account the connection speed when calculating the Cost, so it was miscalculating the Root.

 

Thank you for calling my first solution a hack. It just motivated me to dig deeper.

 

 

 

Message 8 of 10
Josh_Manton
Guide

Re: Two Active Switches With Redundant Uplink

I have one unrelated question for you.

 

I was using the web interface on the switches for a week without issue. Then I needed to reload the exported configuration on both. Now when I click on some of the menu items the content fails to load, but not all the time. I see in the browser log that there are CORS errors. I switched over to https and that resolved the issue but the interface is now lagging a little. I have tried to remove the cookies and delete any browser cache.

 

I am using DHCP reservation to assign IP addresses and I access the switches using hostnames configured on the internal dns server. This issue does not happen if I use IP address.

 

Message 9 of 10
schumaku
Guru

Re: Two Active Switches With Redundant Uplink

Ref. CORS errors: We're not heavily making use of https, because of the limitations in Netgear's https switch implementation, the lack of an ability to use an own local PKI (CA), industry standard key distribution method.

 

Most of these switches in the field are Insight managed. On the few devices we use local Web UI, both http and https work otherwise flawless. There was a firmware release back in March 2023 covering MS510TXM and MS510TXUP with the version 1.0.5.12, which is no longer available to the users, after 1.0.5.10 was released more than a year ago , introducing an Upgrade of OpenSSL to version 1.1.20, adding TLS 1.2/1.3 support, and supporting SSH access control sessions, among some bug fixes.

Message 10 of 10
Top Contributors
Discussion stats
  • 9 replies
  • 969 views
  • 1 kudo
  • 2 in conversation
Announcements