Cisco Support Community
Community Member

second design


I have two designs for the call center in China. The option A is prefer. The option B is suggested by someone.

Which one is better and why?

For the option B, I need to connect two uplink cables to core switch. if "swicth A" is down, the uplink between "switch A" to another floors are down. That's why I need to connect second uplink to "switch B".

However, I do not know the option B to be the "normal design" or not.


Hall of Fame Super Bronze

Re: second design

Option B is definitely better.

Option A provides 2 independent switches with inter-switch speed links of 3Gbps (etherchanneled) while Option B provides one logical switch with backplane speed of 32Gbps (stacked).

As for dual uplink, with option B - I suggest doing the same, however one port will be blocking (same happens with Option A) while the other port will be forwarding from the leaf switches toward the stacked switch STP root.




Community Member

Re: second design

The option A is good design. You have full redundancy in place if either of the Core switch goes down or one of the link you are still able to connect everywhere.

Only disadvantage of this approach is you are using one extra port on each switch which i think isn't bad choice if you have so many advantages.

And the option B I really can't understand what you are trying to achieve.

Super Bronze

Re: second design

Option "B" is dependent on devices that can joined in such a manner that they become one virtual device. The 3750 and 3750-E series offer this as a feature, as does 6500s using VSS.

There are many advantages with the virtual device configurations. For instance, one might be the option to Etherchannel the uplinks; still one link physically per switch within the pair.

CreatePlease to create content