Order of Switches - Switches / Switch Stack

[Grant3779]

Hi,

New to Meraki. Cisco CLI guy 🙂

I have a 3 switch stack and when looking at the dashboard it is displayed as the attached. Is there a way I can amend the layout so it shows 201 at top, 202 in middle, 203 at bottom. This is how they are racked and stacking cables connected in relation to that also. My dashboard image shows 203, 201, 202 in that order but that isn't physically how they are. Is this just cosmetic? Doesn't seem to be a role such as stack master etc.. compared to Cisco stacking, or switch numbers. Not that I can see anyways.

I would just prefer for switch 201 to be listed first, especially when going into "configure switch ports" for the stack as currently the ports begin

203 /1

203 /2

203 /3

etc..

Hopefully that makes sense.

[NolanHerring · Accepted solution]

I don't see any way to do that. Good question though.

I only have one stack myself (two switches) and it 'happened' to get them right. Unless its using the name of the switch as a way of determining the order (alphabetical etc.).

If you rename them to test it out, does the visualization order change/update to reflect the change in name?

Say instead of what you have, just call them 201, 202, 203 and see what happens. Since I'm not sure what you have in front of the numbers themselves.

[Grant3779]

Just had a thought and will check it out later. It may list the stack in that dashboard area in order of their IP address. Lowest IP first and so forth. I had to move a switch to this stack and that has a lower IP address which is why it may show at top. I usually keep them sequential if I can. Not sure if anyone is able to test this in a lab? I think this is it though

[TEAM-ind]

Looks like the order of the switches is determined by MAC address, and not a whole lot a person can do other than make sure they are in the desired physical order in the rack (paying attention to the MAC when racking).  Is this correct?  I'm trying to reorder in the switch dashboard, myself. 

[Cmiller]

dumb question but is the pre 201-03 text the same ? As in the part you have marked out on the screeshot is it the same, example switch 201, switch 202 switch 203? I always start with the simple things then work harder

[Grant3779]

Hi C Miller, 

Yes Pretext exactly the same. I had just blanked those out to respect the company tbh, no other reason, but everything is the same apart from the numbers. The 203 has the lowest IP so i do think this is it. Not tested yet though. 

[Cmiller]

didn't see your post until after I replied, sounds like you are on to something. Good luck sir 

[Grant3779]

Hi All,

Well.... I had a typo in my switch name, one single character which indeed made 203 first based on alphabet 🙈. Thanks for the replies. You were right 😎. I only noticed the typo.

[Cmiller]

It happens to the best of us.... Glad you got it fixed!

[MarioG1]

Just assign the number 1 to the top switch  / 2 to the second switch and so on. This will re-order your Stack

[GIdenJoe]

I believe when creating the stack the actual order in which you add switches to the stack is used to order the switches top/down.  Maybe try to disband the stack and recreate it.

[K2_Josh]

I built a stack of four MS355s today. I mounted and cabled them based on the order of their serial numbers. This turned out (not surprisingly) to be the same order as the MAC addresses. After I built the stack, the Switch Stack Overview page showed them in the reverse order. I opened up a ticket and was advised that there's no way to change this, but that renaming the switches (from the MAC address) should be done anyways. Later, after renaming the switches, they did end up showing up in the correct order in the Overview page. So, I wonder if they are sorted the wrong way only when they do not have a name set. The IP address order is currently the same as serial/MAC/physical order, and it was almost certainly the same when I created the stack; so I don't think that the IP address plays a role.

In any case, it would improve the deployment experience if this could be fixed or at least answered by a KB.

I also noticed that blinking the switches didn't work for one of the four switches. This was only tested when they were in a stack.