<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>topic Cascading 2 Cluster Interconnect Switches in ONTAP Discussions</title>
    <link>https://community.netapp.com/t5/ONTAP-Discussions/Cascading-2-Cluster-Interconnect-Switches/m-p/130756#M28451</link>
    <description>&lt;P&gt;Greetings everyone,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;This question may sound strange, but I do wonder if we can cascade two CN1610's to form the cluster interconnection. By that I mean a node is connected to a CN1610, and this CN1610 is connected to another CN1610, then to another node. To provide path redundency, another 2 CN1610's are needed, so this involves total 4 CN1610's.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;If I recall correctly, NetApp uses Automatic Private IP Addressing (APIPA) for the IP addresses of cluster LIF, that is an IP address like 169.254.x.x. For each interconnection, 2 CN1610's form a single Layer-2 so two controllers at each side can still communicate with each other using its 169.254.x.x IP address as if only one CN1610 is between them.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Any replication would be appreciated in advance. Thank you.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Wed, 04 Jun 2025 15:07:39 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>nachin</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2025-06-04T15:07:39Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>Cascading 2 Cluster Interconnect Switches</title>
      <link>https://community.netapp.com/t5/ONTAP-Discussions/Cascading-2-Cluster-Interconnect-Switches/m-p/130756#M28451</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Greetings everyone,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;This question may sound strange, but I do wonder if we can cascade two CN1610's to form the cluster interconnection. By that I mean a node is connected to a CN1610, and this CN1610 is connected to another CN1610, then to another node. To provide path redundency, another 2 CN1610's are needed, so this involves total 4 CN1610's.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;If I recall correctly, NetApp uses Automatic Private IP Addressing (APIPA) for the IP addresses of cluster LIF, that is an IP address like 169.254.x.x. For each interconnection, 2 CN1610's form a single Layer-2 so two controllers at each side can still communicate with each other using its 169.254.x.x IP address as if only one CN1610 is between them.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Any replication would be appreciated in advance. Thank you.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 04 Jun 2025 15:07:39 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.netapp.com/t5/ONTAP-Discussions/Cascading-2-Cluster-Interconnect-Switches/m-p/130756#M28451</guid>
      <dc:creator>nachin</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2025-06-04T15:07:39Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Cascading 2 Cluster Interconnect Switches</title>
      <link>https://community.netapp.com/t5/ONTAP-Discussions/Cascading-2-Cluster-Interconnect-Switches/m-p/130759#M28452</link>
      <description>Cluster interconnect expects full mesh connectivity. So while it may work I'm pretty sure it is not supported.</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 03 May 2017 16:08:51 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.netapp.com/t5/ONTAP-Discussions/Cascading-2-Cluster-Interconnect-Switches/m-p/130759#M28452</guid>
      <dc:creator>aborzenkov</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2017-05-03T16:08:51Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Cascading 2 Cluster Interconnect Switches</title>
      <link>https://community.netapp.com/t5/ONTAP-Discussions/Cascading-2-Cluster-Interconnect-Switches/m-p/130760#M28453</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;I'll recommend you requesting for a PVR from netapp.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;For migration purpose, between two datacenter (distance less then 200M)&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;somthing similar was approved via PVR.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I believe it will be depends on the destance between the switches.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;seems like what you need is a metro cluster...&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Based on you post.. if there if considerable distance between both switch (or both set of switch)&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;how you will achieve the HA multi path SAS cabling between the two nodes !?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Keep in mind path redundency is not just in Cluster switch level. &amp;nbsp;You need to achieve that&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;in SAS cabling by having multiple path to both nodes.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;In case, if you are planning to have an HA pair on both location.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;thats *might* be very similar to metro cluster setup.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Ontap uses "&lt;SPAN&gt;169.254.x.x.", if you leave the custer configuraiton as "Auto"&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;SPAN&gt;during the cluster configuration you can specify any IP for those interfaces.&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;SPAN&gt;As long as they can communicte, cluster setup will not give you any problem.&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;SPAN&gt;hope this help.&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 03 May 2017 20:30:28 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.netapp.com/t5/ONTAP-Discussions/Cascading-2-Cluster-Interconnect-Switches/m-p/130760#M28453</guid>
      <dc:creator>robinpeter</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2017-05-03T20:30:28Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

