From: asadovnikov (asadovnikov@comcast.net)
Date: Thu Jun 01 2006 - 22:13:39 ART
Venkat,
Switches in ring topology is bad idea. There following technologies going
to work acceptably over such topology:
- Sonnet (best option)
- Routed network (acceptable option)
I much rather do not see rings all together, but if you must due to money
limitation do one of the above, do not do switching.
I would be surprised if you found case studies... I had seen it done
multiple times, and other then saving money it was bad... and nobody wants
to put case study out on how bad something works.
Best Regards,
Alexei
-----Original Message-----
From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
Venkataramanaiah.R
Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2006 3:01 PM
To: James Ventre
Cc: ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: Re: Switches in a ring topology....
James, Good sense of humour, and i am also for what you are
suggesting, but i think you do not realize that at times due to
geographical limiations and to cut cost, people do opt for ring
topo... so i am looking for some real life experience or some pointers
to some real life case studies :-)
Thanks
-Venkat
On 6/1/06, James Ventre <messageboard@ventrefamily.com> wrote:
> Typically, The best practice is to do triangles. You do a triangle with
> Your Switch, STP Root and Secondary Root. Rings, Squares, Boxes,
> Octagons, etc. generally have higher convergence times when failures
> happen and can produce some suboptimal paths depending on how many nodes
> are involved.
>
> James
>
>
>
> Venkataramanaiah.R wrote:
> > Has anyone implemented such a topology... If so, whatz the max count
> > of switches you have
> > in the ring..?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Jul 01 2006 - 07:57:31 ART