Cisco – WS-X45-SUP6-E / WS-X45-SUP7-E compatibility w/4510R (non-E)

ciscoswitch

The EOL announcement for the Cisco WS-X4516 on a 4510R (non-E series chassis) states that the WS-X45-SUP6-E is a replacement though this SUP is for the E-series chassis. Incidentially, the SUP6 is also EOL and replaced with the WS-X45-SUP7-E.

Can these E-series SUPs be used to replace 4516 non-E series SUPs? My VAR says "no" after checking with Cisco. Is the VAR or these EOL announcements correct (or am I misreading them)?

With the 4500 non-E series EOL, I'm looking for any upgrade options on the SUPs short of having to replace the entire chassis and modules if possible.

End-of-Sale and End-of-Life Announcement for the Select Cisco Catalyst 4500 Non-E-Series Supervisor Engines

End-of-Sale and End-of-Life Announcement for the Cisco Catalyst 4500 Supervisor Engine 6-E

Best Answer

Sup6E is supported in non-E chassis and it supports legacy modules.

The Cisco Catalyst 4500 Supervisor Engine 6-E is compatible with classic Cisco Catalyst 4500 line cards, chassis, and power supplies, providing full investment protection. (Source: Sup6E Data sheet)

Sup7E requires an E chassis

Cisco Catalyst Supervisor Engine 7-E is supported in Cisco Catalyst 4500 E-Series chassis only. (Source: Sup7E Data sheet)

Related Solutions

Cisco 4510R+E: Can I safely use SFP interfaces on the dual sup’s to interconnect switches

My question is if this is an OK design, what are the possible pitfalls (say if a sup blows, how long before the link fails over)

This design seems fine if you don’t have any dedicated 10G uplink modules. You just need to remember that your supervisor cards will go down more than any other cards on your chassis for software upgrades. Those upgrades depend on your organization; so in most cases, this could not even be an issue.

As John Kennedy mentioned, STP with BackboneFast/UplinkFast (given your using PVST+) is a must if you want to use STP to reconverge the failure in a reasonable time-frame. This will effectively take a 50 second outage to less than 30.

I think a more elegant solution would be to put these links into an Etherchannel. Since you’re running SSO, all LACP/PAgP information will be synchronized across both supervisors in near realtime. This would also allow you to utilize a 20Gb path, as opposed to a single 10Gb with one in standby.

Non-Cisco SFPs – Err-Disable State in 2960s and 2960 PoE Switch

After some research I determined that Cisco automatically disables non cisco branded SFPs. In order to prevent them from defaulting to err-disable I had to enter the following commands in config mode.

Router(config)#service internal
Router(config)#no errdisable detect cause gbic-invalid
Router(config)#service unsupported-transceiver

I then configured the SFP interface to a management vlan, connected a laptop to it by changing the laptop's IP address and confirmed that the SFP does indeed take traffic. Hope this helps!

Best Answer

Related Solutions

Cisco 4510R+E: Can I safely use SFP interfaces on the dual sup’s to interconnect switches

Non-Cisco SFPs – Err-Disable State in 2960s and 2960 PoE Switch

Related Topic