Bosun Netsim can be really annoying

Kaminsky

So I am working through stp (still) and decide to build a simulated 7 interlinked swtiched network to get ready to start playing with BID values and working out what will happen before I check for the answer to see if I am right.

I build my little netmap, jump into Visio 2k3 and draw it all noting down the macs, etc.

Then I save it (expecting "Save All" to mean save all!) and reload it and low and behold ... a brand new set of mac addresses come up for all devices. Wouldn't be such a problem but switches and working out STP is all about layer 2 and mac addresses. Brand new root bridge... etc.

So annoying! Spent ages on that.


Do the other netsims people use make this fundamental mistake ? Any recomendatations on a better netsim. $ for the real McCoy are still a ways off yet.

mikej412

Kaminsky wrote:

Any recomendatations on a better netsim.

Nope.... if you don't stray far from the included labs, it usually will work fine. Once you start creating your own labs... all bets are off.

For routing stuff, Dynamips (and Dynagen) is an option. It looks like the layer 2 functions of the NM-16ESW module could still use some work.

What version are you using? CCNA or CCNP? Latest bugfixes?

Paul Boz

I use the Boson Netsim and have run into many similar problems, like OSPF not working properly on a larger lab, and I've also experienced STP problems as well. I usually use the Boson software to design and figure out my network then translate it to my actual hardware lab at work. Short of having a hardware lab, just try not to stray too far from the Boson labs and you'll be fine.

mattipler

I've been using Boson Netsim for CCNA throughout my Cisco Academy training and find it's usefulness limited, especially with link state routing protocols.
However it's the best simulator I've found so far other than those provided on the cisco academy website... which are spot on but have no freedom to design your own network etc.

sexion8

Out of utter curiousity, wouldn't it be a better idea to learn the pros and cons of designing things from the ground up as opposed to a simulator. To me it seems the fun and grime layers of learning, adjusting, falling on your behind are taken away by using a simulator...

I say this using the following as a support basis for this... Currently @ work I hit a stumbling block... I had to design a failover solution for my company's SBC's... It took some dissection figuring out and factoring how many VoIP calls I now process, how much we'd grown within a six month time interval to get a baseline of expected growth.

After I'd done the standard math to figure out three solutions. A small, mid and high cost router/failover solution we are implementing. This information was tailored to what my true needs and expectations are not a simulated number. (Think Murphy's Law). While lab scenarios are just that, scenarios, I found that templates are nothing more than baselines someone else forsaw, and they usually never truly conform to one's expectations... Anyhow, I ended up with a Juniper solution we use (two M60's accompanying to 6506E's already in house). It was more practical, economical in the long run, and it allowed me to re-introduce me to JunOS :O ... That said, to me it was more challenging to tailor, find, and modify things for me as opposed to opening up say a Cisco SAFE guideline, or what worked for someone else. Then again, this is a real world scenario so there is little room error for starters, and I guess a simulator would never wake you up at 4am because failover didn't work...

Kaminsky

I am willing to bet those of us using simulators to gain some hands on, even if it is simulated hands on, would much rather be playing around with real kit if we only had the money go go out and get it. Even the cheap kit you can sometimes pick up on ebay are out of my reach right now.

With simulated hands on, although not being right up to the mark, it does give us a good head start on not having any experience of the device environments.

Paul Boz

sexion8:

No one here is trying to use simulators to design and test real production networks. They are simply used to learn the concepts on the Cisco exams quicker than having to build, cable, and configure a physical lab repeatedly. I could use my hardware lab exclusively but if I did so I'd never have access to the nearly unlimited volume of equipment I can use in a simulator. Studying routing protocols or STP can be done with two or three routers and switches but you'll never get the breadth of experience or knowledge that using three times the equipment in a virtual lab environment can offer.