From: Larson, Chris (CLarson@usaid.gov)
Date: Mon Jan 06 2003 - 16:04:42 GMT-3
I think one of the ideas behind a standard topology is that it would more
easily allow people who wanted to volunteer their racks for use would not
have to be burdened with changing it for the individual users everytime they
did a different lab. At least that is what I think the reasoning is/was.
If you look, some commercial labs use almost the same topology throughtout
the works others are different each time. My ECP clas used the same topology
throughout.
Personally, I do not find any great benefit in changing the topology over
and over. It would seem to me that most if not all gotchas, VLSM/FLSM
issues etc. can be brought out in almost any topology with 6 to 8 routers or
possibly less. I have not given too much thought but I do not think there
is anything that changes in topology gains a person except getting them
comfortable with looking at the network and working with it in different
ways. The underlying technologies do not change really with topology as long
as the topo can accomodate all the technologies (ie. Frame, atm. bridging
scenarios etc)
Maybe if the system that is devised to make it easy for volunteers to share
their rack space that is not in use can someway assign a topology to the
volunteer. However the easier it is the more likely people are going to
volunteer their rack space.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: OhioHondo [SMTP:ohiohondo@columbus.rr.com]
> Sent: Monday, January 06, 2003 1:14 PM
> To: Cal Michael; 'Groupstudy'
> Subject: RE: Call for Volunteers to produce Free Labs for the
> Networking Community
>
> I agree with Cal. Of course the lab topology is somewhat dictated by the
> available equipment. If every router has a connection to an ethernet
> switch,
> and at least 4 (maybe more) routers have a full mesh connection to a
> frame
> relay switch -- this gives a lot of flexibility. The connection of
> additional sync ports (pt-pt) and ISDN connections ,make the design less
> flexible. These connections need more consideration.
>
> Who is gathering input for the labs (content, format, etc.). I have some
> that I have written and shared with a few people in Groupstudy. You might
> want to look at them for format and/or content.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com]On Behalf Of
> Cal Michael
> Sent: Monday, January 06, 2003 12:32 PM
> To: 'Groupstudy'
> Subject: RE: Call for Volunteers to produce Free Labs for the Networking
> Community
>
>
> - Just to get the debate going on a "root" lab
> topology. No flaming please.
>
> While I applaud the efforts of those willing
> to donate finished labs, I think that the goal
> should be to build new - original lab materials
> that use a "universal" topology, not one that
> is biased towards one rack vendor or another.
>
> I would advocate a scalable "universal" design
> using what is known of the actual CCIE R/S lab.
>
> My suggestion would be to build to:
>
> LAN Connectivity WAN Connectivity
> 2621 Fa0/0 -> 3550#1
> 2621 Fa0/1 -> 3550#2 2621 S0/1 -> 2522
>
> -----3550EMI----- ------2522------
> 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
> 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6
> 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
> 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
> -----3550EMI-----
>
> Dial Connectivity can be achieved using AUX
> ports between routers in a back to back format.
>
> Technologies such as ISDN, Voice, and ATM
> which incur greater equipment cost per feature
> can also be added.
>
> Lab Designers can choose to use only a portion
> of this equipment, or the full topology.
>
> Lab Users would be able to acquire gear as
> their budget allows, or rent as they need time.
>
> --- ----- ---
> .
> .
.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Feb 01 2003 - 07:33:43 GMT-3