We've got two 4506 cores with 3550's on each floor (9 floors) and a couple Nortel layer 2's connected to the 3550's. We want to have each floor be a separate VLAN. Everything I have read talks about doing VLAN routing on ONE switch? That is ok but my initial thought was that it would be better performance wise to offload routing to each 3550 with the cores just passing traffic between them. Is this possible or do I need to do all the routing on the 4506s? How would I do it?
My other question is I read a Cisco article that talks about doing HSRP between two switches (my 4506s) for failover. Assuming I have to do the routing on the 4506s how do I set up the config as far as VLAN routing goes? Do I need to set up VLAN interfaces on both cores? Does the config on each one need to be identical?
The legacy approach is to configure routing on the core switches and access switches would only serve as layer 2 switches. Your consideration to enable routing on the access switches for their respective VLANs is a better choice and should offload the burden put on the core switches a great deal.
HSRP on the core switches should provide you redundnacy for the 3550's. Configure all the uplinks from the 3550 to the core switches to be on the same access VLAN, create a SVI for that VLAN on the core switches, create two HSRP groups on that VLAN. Make each core switch to be the active router for one HSRP group. All your 3550's can used two default routes to point to those two HSRP addresses. This setup should provide load balancing across both switches and redundancy, if one switch should fail.
Thanks that helps quite a bit. I have one other related question. Each 3550 is uplinked to the cores via 2 fiber cables, one link to each core.
I would like to enable etherchannel on these fiber links but from what I have read we would have to move both links to the same core as etherchannel doesn't work between multiple switches. Is that correct? Will implementing this change the configuration you gave me? What would that be? Thanks again this really helps me out.
1. 'I would like to enable etherchannel on these fiber links but from what I have read we would have to move both links to the same core as etherchannel doesn't work between multiple switches. Is that correct?'
2. 'Will implementing this change the configuration you gave me?'
No. With etherchannel you are bundling multiple ports into channel group and the layer 3 configuration would still be applied on your SVI interface. I don't think you can do multi-chassis etherchannel.
Here's a couple of links that you may find useful in configuring etherchannel.
How about L3 P2P links from access to core and a routing protocol to provide load balancing and redunancy ?? A properly configured routing protocol will provide better convergence times than STP and will alow for true load sharing....
Hi everyone, I would like to thank you in advance for any help you can provide a newcomer like myself!
Im studying the 100-105 book by Odom and am currently on the topic of Port security. I purchased a used 2960 and I'm trying to follow a...
While deploying a number of 18xx/2802/3802 model access points (APs), which run AP-COS as their operating platform. It can be observed on some occasions that while many of their access points were able to join the fabric WLC withou...
I am going to design and build an LAN network under a tunnel underground with long distance between the switches.
I will have 2 Catalyst switches and 8 Industrial IE3000, and they will be connected with fiber.
For now I am planning on use Layer-2 s...