SVI VERSUS NO SWITCHPORT INTERFACE

Unanswered Question
Jun 14th, 2007
User Badges:

Hello,


I'm trying to deploy a solution where i have to connect 2x6500 core switch's in a redundant connection to other 2x6500 switch, in a full mesh configuration.


I'm thinking in using layer 3 interfaces (ip add in gigabit interfaces) to connect the 4 catalyst.


Cam any one tell me waht are the advantages for using no switchporr interfaces versus svi interfaces in this scenario ?


Many Thanks

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Overall Rating: 0 (0 ratings)
Loading.
royalblues Thu, 06/14/2007 - 11:56
User Badges:
  • Green, 3000 points or more

I would prefer using routed ports as SVI's would extend your spanning tree domain.


The connection seems to be your core connection and hence it is always recommended not to extend your VLAN/STP on the core


Also convergence would be faster in case of routed ports.


HTH, rate if it does

Narayan

Edison Ortiz Thu, 06/14/2007 - 12:03
User Badges:
  • Super Bronze, 10000 points or more
  • Hall of Fame,

    Founding Member

I agree with Narayan. SVI implementation is only useful when you are deploying L3 VLANs where devices need a gateway to send the packets.


If this is a point-to-point design, routed-ports is the perfect solution.

glen.grant Fri, 06/15/2007 - 04:13
User Badges:
  • Purple, 4500 points or more

It really depends on what you are doing , if you never need to add devices on those 6509's into those subnets then use a routed port to feed the other switches . If you feel that you may need to extend those subnets to multiple switches in the future then you would need to use SVi's so that you could trunk the vlans to the access switches .

Actions

This Discussion