From: Richard Mott (richpmott@xxxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Fri Aug 11 2000 - 11:30:28 GMT-3
This looks like alot of equipment for what seems to be a network of about
100 users. (Someone is making a large commission here)
Gotchas:
At this time the 4000 series only suports 802.1q trunking.
(possible issues with 2924M which I believe are ISL only)
If you lose a distribution switch you isolate users and servers connected to
that switch.
If you lose a core switch you still isolate users and servers connected to
that switch.
Network design is like to tuning sound equipment: It's subjective.
Each person has there own design philosophies. (Which I think is going to
make the CCIE Design tough to pass)
Good luck
Rich Mott
CCIE #5234 (R&S)(ISP/Dial)
>From: Philip Lai <philip.lai@ncr.com>
>Reply-To: Philip Lai <philip.lai@ncr.com>
>To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
>CC: Philip Lai <philip.lai@ncr.com>
>Subject: CCIE Design Candidate , Pls read.
>Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2000 21:22:43 +0800
>
>Network Design issue.
>
> 6500(L3)- 6500 (L3) Core
> / \
> 4908G(L3) 4908G(L3) Distribution
> / \ / \
>2924M 2924M 2924M 2924M Access
> A B C D
>Vlan1 Vlan2 Vlan3 Vlan4
>
>Server Farm will be directly attached to the Core. There will be some
>departmental servers in zone A for both zone A and B users.
>
>My friend has designed a switching network like this and claim that it will
>have better performance than using 3508G (L2) in the distribution layer.
>Since the 4908G has the L3 routing feature, when zone A transfer packet to
>zone B, that traffic will pass only the 4908G but not the 6500 (Core).
>Thus,
>the bandwidth from the 6500 to 4908G can be saved.
>
>My questions:
>1. If both the Core and Distribution switch are routing enabled, that
>switches has to be the VTP server. ie: 4 indentical Vlan database are keep
>by each switches (Core & Dist.)
>2. Does it meaningful to configure trunk mode between all switches in order
>to pass the Vlan information ? If all 2924M are in VTP clients mode, which
>switches should be the VTP server ? and why?
>3. A crazy idea is to think about the L3 switches as a individual router.
>Then apply OSPF between to each one and enable routing. Will the network be
>quite slow for this design, compared with the standard design.-- Core
>(Routing)--Dis(Switching)---Access(Switching) ?
>
>4. In fact, I recommend the stand design using 3508G for dist. But could
>you
>tell me the adv and Disadv for using this and the design above ?
>
>Thank you very much for every reply
>
>Philip Lai
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 13 2002 - 08:24:24 GMT-3