Hi everyone, below on the left is a quick diagram of a section of our network. Our core switches are also routers and use HSRP. The core and distribution switches have about 150 VLAN's on them, even VLANs on the B switches and odd VLANs on the A switches. But only one VLAN on the access switches, and there is no trunk between the distribution and access switches.
The boxes behind the switches represent seperate buildings. There are only 2 usable pairs of fibre between the distribution building and access building.
Our current setup has redundant links from access switch A to the two distribution switches. If the access A switch fails, the B and C switch aren't accesible.
Now my proposed solution.....on the right. I've mentioned it at work and I get shot down. Appearently we had a CCIE at work once and he said it was a bad idea creating a box like that.
The way I see it STP will just block one of the two links going out to the access switches. If access switch A fails then the other two still stay up, as opposed to the current setup.
So what is wrong with my proposed solution?
Basically my boss wants solid proof why this isn't bad, but I can't seem to find any Cisco recommended material stating that it's good or bad.
I don't see any issues with your design. The purists will argue that the correct way to design such networks is to dual-home your access-layer switches to the distribution-layer switches and the distribution-layer switches to your core switches. However, we cannot always have that luxury. In terms of whether it will work or not, you are correct that STP is not going to be an issue.
I don't believe you will find any documentation explicitly covering this topology (since it is not completely in line with the hierarchical design model). However, that does not mean that this model will not work. And the alternative (your present setup) is far worse..
Ok, just one variance...we have this current setup in a few buildings, and in a couple buildings, as the access switch A, it's a 4000 switch, with 2950's as the B and C switch. Would linking the redundant link from the distribution B to the access C switch still be acceptable?
So if lets say distribution A switch went down, all the traffic on the 4000 A switch would be daisy chained though the B and C switch back to the distribution B switch.
[toc:faq]The ProblemOn traditional switches whenever we have a trunk
interface we use the VLAN tag to demultiplex the VLANs. The switch needs
to determine which MAC Address table to look in for a forwarding
decision. To do this we require the switch to do...
[toc:faq]Introduction:Netdr is a tool available on a RSP720, Sup720 or
Sup32 that allows one to capture packets on the RP or SP inband. The
netdr command can be used to capture both Tx and Rx packets in the
software switching path. This is not a substitut...
IntroductionOSPF, being a link-state protocol, allows for every router
in the network to know of every link and OSPF speaker in the entire
network. From this picture each router independently runs the Shortest
Path First (SPF) algorithm to determine the b...