Small Production Network Design

Question for fellow professionals. I won't get into the specifics of what's going on at the office but we've received a proposal to install two 6509s in the data center of our network to serve as the core connectivity. Both boxes would run twin Sups and have the NAM/IDS/Firewall modules. My co-worker and I aren't 100% convinced this is necessary on a network that sees at most 3Gbps at peak. The network is not too complicated. Handful of locations and subnets. We're not currently running the NAM/IDS/Firewall modules we already have in our current 6500s.

So, my question is why not use a couple of 3750 stacks or 4948s linked via 10Ge instead of two 6509s? I have my own thoughts on the matter but I wanted to see what others are thinking.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

GT-Rob

If they want to throw money at it, then don't stand in their way!

for real though, there are advantages to doing this. Maybe they forsee a large increase in traffic demand, and instead of waiting for the 3700s to be over subscribed, they go with 6500s now (which are much more flexible as well).

That said its likely the Cisco Partner that is pitching to your manager is a good saleman

tiersten

3Mbps at peak? You sure? Thats pretty low for the network core.

ColbyG

If it isn't your money, and they're willing to spend it, go for it. I've never seen issues from OVERbuilt networks.

Paul Boz

Don't oppose them. If you have never worked on one of Cisco's large modular chassis it will be outstanding experience for you.

Turgon

RTmarc wrote: »

Question for fellow professionals. I won't get into the specifics of what's going on at the office but we've received a proposal to install two 6509s in the data center of our network to serve as the core connectivity. Both boxes would run twin Sups and have the NAM/IDS/Firewall modules. My co-worker and I aren't 100% convinced this is necessary on a network that sees at most 3Mbps at peak. The network is not too complicated. Handful of locations and subnets. We're not currently running the NAM/IDS/Firewall modules we already have in our current 6500s.

So, my question is why not use a couple of 3750 stacks or 4948s linked via 10Ge instead of two 6509s? I have my own thoughts on the matter but I wanted to see what others are thinking.

Think it over carefully and then put forward the cost/benefits of each solution to management. You may be saving them significant money by ditching the 6509s. But it really depends to what extent future proofing requirements have been assessed by the people producing the proposal. You need to be careful of trying to roadrail something that isn't your problem and has been looked over very carefully by both the people spelling out your companies requirements and the folks producing that proposal. There may be a lot you don't know if you were not part of those discussions. As a designer I have encountered this when support ask questions of design decisions. By not being part of the design process they are not aware of *all* the requirements we have to factor into network solutions. That situation you will have a better feel for than me because you are there.

If it's out of your hands and the 6509's go in, they are cool.

Pash

Ahh the 6509's, beautiful bit's of kit! Sounds like you got some fun modules to install as well. We are running old supervisor card's on our clients 6509's, and the IOS is so old we can't even run ssh on it without an image upgrade (whcih they don't have the budget for).

The chasis support for them is going eol in Q4 2012 though, I don't know if that would potentially effect their decision. How often do they swap out old equipment or put in new stuff?

Cheers,

Pash

keenon

RTmarc wrote: »

Question for fellow professionals. I won't get into the specifics of what's going on at the office but we've received a proposal to install two 6509s in the data center of our network to serve as the core connectivity. Both boxes would run twin Sups and have the NAM/IDS/Firewall modules. My co-worker and I aren't 100% convinced this is necessary on a network that sees at most 3Mbps at peak. The network is not too complicated. Handful of locations and subnets. We're not currently running the NAM/IDS/Firewall modules we already have in our current 6500s.

So, my question is why not use a couple of 3750 stacks or 4948s linked via 10Ge instead of two 6509s? I have my own thoughts on the matter but I wanted to see what others are thinking.

As a quick answer if your going with the 6500s make sure they sell you the E chassis as they are not EOL. What are the requirements that are trying to be met? I have seen companies run all sorts of stackables in the core based on requirements/budgets. I'm not too keen on having firewall mods in the core switches.

Pash

keenon wrote: »

As a quick answer if your going with the 6500s make sure they sell you the E chassis as they are not EOL. What are the requirements that are trying to be met? I have seen companies run all sorts of stackables in the core based on requirements/budgets. I'm not too keen on having firewall mods in the core switches.

This is a good point:-

EOS for Selective Cisco Catalyst 6503,Catalyst 6506 and Catalyst 6509 Chassis [Cisco Catalyst 6500 Series Switches] - Cisco Systems

nel

Paul Boz wrote: »

Don't oppose them. If you have never worked on one of Cisco's large modular chassis it will be outstanding experience for you.

This was the same for me. I had a project involving a large LAN upgrade. Was tremendous experiance working with a pair of 6500's. i didnt have any fancy additional modules but the wealth of experiance i gained was tremendous. Plus it looks good on your CV.

apd123

RTmarc wrote: »

Question for fellow professionals. I won't get into the specifics of what's going on at the office but we've received a proposal to install two 6509s in the data center of our network to serve as the core connectivity. Both boxes would run twin Sups and have the NAM/IDS/Firewall modules. My co-worker and I aren't 100% convinced this is necessary on a network that sees at most 3Mbps at peak. The network is not too complicated. Handful of locations and subnets. We're not currently running the NAM/IDS/Firewall modules we already have in our current 6500s.

So, my question is why not use a couple of 3750 stacks or 4948s linked via 10Ge instead of two 6509s? I have my own thoughts on the matter but I wanted to see what others are thinking.

Are the 6509's going to be running VSS? Are the 6509's going to be located in separate rooms? I have done all 3 designs and listed them in order of most to least preferred 6500 pair in VSS, 3750 connected via stackwise and 4948's. Obviously each job is different and there is no design that works for every project. Most of the jobs I do the 3750 pair would work fine, and I feel like the decision is made by whether the client is accustomed to chassis switches or rack switches.

RTmarc

tiersten wrote: »

3Mbps at peak? You sure? Thats pretty low for the network core.

Typo. 3Gbps.

RTmarc

Turgon wrote: »

Think it over carefully and then put forward the cost/benefits of each solution to management. You may be saving them significant money by ditching the 6509s. But it really depends to what extent future proofing requirements have been assessed by the people producing the proposal. You need to be careful of trying to roadrail something that isn't your problem and has been looked over very carefully by both the people spelling out your companies requirements and the folks producing that proposal. There may be a lot you don't know if you were not part of those discussions. As a designer I have encountered this when support ask questions of design decisions. By not being part of the design process they are not aware of *all* the requirements we have to factor into network solutions. That situation you will have a better feel for than me because you are there.

If it's out of your hands and the 6509's go in, they are cool.

It is "my problem" and the ultimate design boils down to what my co-worker and I decide. The group presenting the new equipment is pushing the 6509s and, as such, my question is whether or not others think this is overkill.