5400 Switches with ETAP architecture

[zzl630]

Hi Guys,

Another thread with 5400 switches and ETAPs.
See below the current architecture. I have 6 remote IO boxes, each with a pair of 1783-ETAP1F and 4 AENTR. So I counted a total of 40 nodes in this DLR, seems a lot and makes me worry about the speed and response time. So trying to get a second opinion from everyone.
Q1: Can I config 5400 switches as redundant gateways? Got conflict info from manual and people used it lately
Q2: shall I consider multiple DLR rather than 1 big DLR? There are consideration during startup these remote IO boxes will commissioned by phases.

[BachPhi]

Is there a ring master in this setup?

[jridge]

This is way over my head, but I would check out Rockwell's Ethernet/IP Capacity tool, which is part of Integrated Architecture builder. Once you start throwing devices in there, it may point out an issue.

[zzl630]

Originally Posted by BachPhi

Is there a ring master in this setup?

Did you mean ring supervisor? I am thinking set up the primary chassis EN2TR as the ring supervisor

[zzl630]

Originally Posted by jridge

This is way over my head, but I would check out Rockwell's Ethernet/IP Capacity tool, which is part of Integrated Architecture builder. Once you start throwing devices in there, it may point out an issue.

I checked with a pair of ETAP and 4 AENTR seems ok, not sure if can check the impact on speed with so many nodes.

[BachPhi]

Yes, ring master/supervisor.
There is a little known utility DLR for diagnostic, have you tried that ?.
I am thinking of the same thing, EN2TR as a master, rather than using 5400.
Your ETAPs usage is a little unusual, normally ETAPs are used to bring non-DLR devices into the ring.
40 nodes/50 max.

This may be pertaining to what you have:

Do not configure these features on DLR-enabled ports:
• EtherChannel
• Network Address Translation (NAT)
• Resilient Ethernet Protocol (REP)
• Spanning Tree Protocol (STP)
• Parallel Redundancy Protocol (PRP)
• Flex Links
• 802.1x Security

[zzl630]

Originally Posted by BachPhi

Yes, ring master/supervisor.
There is a little known utility DLR for diagnostic, have you tried that ?.
I am thinking of the same thing, EN2TR as a master, rather than using 5400.
Your ETAPs usage is a little unusual, normally ETAPs are used to bring non-DLR devices into the ring.
40 nodes/50 max.

This may be pertaining to what you have:

Do not configure these features on DLR-enabled ports:
• EtherChannel
• Network Address Translation (NAT)
• Resilient Ethernet Protocol (REP)
• Spanning Tree Protocol (STP)
• Parallel Redundancy Protocol (PRP)
• Flex Links
• 802.1x Security

No I haven't tried that. Is that the Rockwell's Ethernet/IP Capacity tool previous post mentioned?

I consider using ETAP here firstly as a media converter, secondly create a DLR VS a single switch as single point failure, and third to reduce configuration work since we have a lot of switches to config.

Yes good point, I planned to config G1-G4 ports for REP and the rest ports for DLR.

[Contr_Conn]

If you take redundancy out of picture, then two Stratix switched on DLR must be configured as a Redundant Gateways because of REP.
ETAP is not compatible with Redundant Gateway and will drop connection on RG switchover.
Besides the ETAP, if redundant controllers are part of the ring, then this is a a valid connection. Publication HIGHAV-RM002 calling it Direct Converged.
The only recommendation is to have switched between two controllers and not separate controllers and IO.
And do not connect ANYTHING else to non-DLR ports of redundant gateways.

[zzl630]

Thanks for the inputs. I duplicate the architecture in Ethernet/IP Capacity tool to see the performance and seems ok to me.

[zzl630]

Originally Posted by Contr_Conn

If you take redundancy out of picture, then two Stratix switched on DLR must be configured as a Redundant Gateways because of REP.
ETAP is not compatible with Redundant Gateway and will drop connection on RG switchover.
Besides the ETAP, if redundant controllers are part of the ring, then this is a a valid connection. Publication HIGHAV-RM002 calling it Direct Converged.
The only recommendation is to have switched between two controllers and not separate controllers and IO.
And do not connect ANYTHING else to non-DLR ports of redundant gateways.

Not sure how accurate the IAB is but when I add those switches it says this switch must be configured as redundant gateway

[Contr_Conn]

Not sure how accurate the IAB is but when I add those switches it says this switch must be configured as redundant gateway

IAB is correct, these must be redundant gateway.

[zzl630]

Originally Posted by Contr_Conn

IAB is correct, these must be redundant gateway.

But ETAPs don't support redundant gateway? Sorry I am little lost

[Contr_Conn]

IAB does not do check for devices that may not support RG.
There is a technote with a partial list.

[zzl630]

Originally Posted by Contr_Conn

IAB does not do check for devices that may not support RG.
There is a technote with a partial list.

Hmm. interesting. Can I leave these switches as non-redundant switches or this topology won't work out?

[Contr_Conn]

In my opinion, you are using ETAPs strictly as media converters, so it should be Ok, but you may need to ask Techsupport.
Redundant Gateway terminology is in relation to the distribution switches. So if only one DLR switch is connected to the distribution then you don't need redundant gateway.