From: Hash Aminu (hashng@gmail.com)
Date: Fri Jun 20 2008 - 09:39:54 ART
Hi Marc,
While this may add complexity to the design but it can ease the burden of
keeping a blocked whole 10GE idle...you could split the VLANs , and play
with the Spanning tree and HSRP accordingly and for the Backplane I doubt
much, in anyways you can check the utilization of the Backplane using SNMP (
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/tech/tk389/tk621/technologies_tech_note09186a0080136673.shtml)
i cannot remember if there is a command to check that...someone may came up
with that .....
with mls and dcef enabled you can ease the performance of the processor.
still in the future i would recommend the Layer 3 to the access if you can..
hth
hash
On Fri, Jun 20, 2008 at 11:02 AM, Marc La Porte <marc.a.laporte@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Hash,
>
> I am running Sup720-3B.
> I am running Layer 2 to the access switches; only one 10GE is in use at any
> time (HSRP)
> Everything is running DCF
> At the moment, the design prohibits me from running Layer 3 to the access
> layer, so I am not able to load balance in that way
> I can only insert one 10GE blade per access switch, so I could etherchannel
> this to 40 Gbps (can the backplane handle this?), but then I still have a
> problem because I could do 40 Gbps between the d-core and the core too,
> while there is much more oversubscription there.
>
> Marc
>
> On Fri, Jun 20, 2008 at 9:39 AM, <sheherezada@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> > From: Hash Aminu <hashng@gmail.com>
> > Date: Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 11:52 PM
> > Subject: Re: Next step up from 6509-E/SUP720??
> > To: sheherezada@gmail.com
> >
> >
> > Marc,
> >
> > I will ask what kind of Sup720 (3B, 3BXL)you are running??? From your
> > description, you seem to be running Layer 3 to the access which means
> > that you will have the OSPF Load balancing across the Uplinks which
> > means you have 20Gbps Uplinks; If not I would recommend considering
> > that, Secondly you watch the interfaces utilization and Processor
> > (which I will believe is still moderate). If you require more
> > Bandwidth on the Uplinks, Consider Etherchannel (With the hope you
> > still have free 10GE Ports or slot to insert another module). You may
> > as well add more DFCs on the Cards to Increase the performance and
> > take advantage of the distributed architecture of Sup720. Having VSS
> > will eliminate complexities like Spanning tree blocked ports and HRSP,
> > but will require you to change your Supervisor engines...
> >
> > hth
> >
> >
> > hash
> >
> > On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 4:24 PM, <sheherezada@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > That would require Sup720-3C. Most probably they use 3B. Anyway, you
> > > just get rid of the STP blocking ports, but I am not sure if doubling
> > > the bandwidth is a radical upgrade.
> > >
> > > Mihai
> > >
> > > On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 10:03 AM, KRATTIGER Lukas
> > > <Lukas.KRATTIGER@nextiraone.ch> wrote:
> > > > Hi Marc
> > > > What do you think about VSS ?
> > > > http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/ps9336/index.html
> > > >
> > > > Regards
> > > > -Lukas
> > > >
> > > > -----Urspr|ngliche Nachricht-----
> > > > Von: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] Im Auftrag
> > von Marc La Porte
> > > > Gesendet: Donnerstag, 19. Juni 2008 08:58
> > > > An: Cisco certification
> > > > Betreff: Next step up from 6509-E/SUP720??
> > > >
> > > > Hi experts,
> > > >
> > > > We have a Data Center environment with all 6509-E/SUP720 on
> > access/distribution/core layer, all with 10GE uplinks, and 1GE on the
> access
> > towards to hosts. We have 18 OSPF areas, each with 2 d-core switches and
> 21
> > access switches. Each access switch holds a maximum of 240 ports.
> > > >
> > > > This means:
> > > > 240 * 21 = 5,040 GE of access ports on a 10GE to the distribution
> 5040
> > * 18 = 90,720 GE of distribution ports on a 10GE to the core
> > > >
> > > > Obviously not all OSPF areas have 21 switches, and not all have 240
> > ports, and not all are fully connected, and not all are running 1 Gbps,
> and
> > not all are fully loaded, but you get my drift...
> > > > The fact that no customers are complaining and that none of the
> uplinks
> > are above 70% should say enough...
> > > >
> > > > Yet, I am looking into how to expand the current core environment
> > (basically
> > > > 2 6509-E/SUP720 with 6 X6704-10GE blades) to something that is ready
> > for the future.
> > > >
> > > > Now, my question is: is the next step up from a 6509-E/SUP720 really
> > only the Nexus7000 or are there other opions as well?
> > > >
> > > > Thanks.
> > > > Marc
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> _______________________________________________________________________
> > > > Subscription information may be found at:
> > > > http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> _______________________________________________________________________
> > > > Subscription information may be found at:
> > > > http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________________________________
> > > Subscription information may be found at:
> > > http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________________________________
> > Subscription information may be found at:
> > http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
>
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> Subscription information may be found at:
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Jul 01 2008 - 06:23:22 ART