IDF Configurations

I'd do it a little different in a more hierarchical manner. I'd have the two uplinks coming into two different switches wich are connected together, then all the other switches have an uplink to each of those.

networker050184 wrote: »

I'd do it a little different in a more hierarchical manner. I'd have the two uplinks coming into two different switches wich are connected together, then all the other switches have an uplink to each of those.

Hmmm! Interesting thought, I like it. Something like this huh?

Not sure why so many attachments show up, I thought I only did one. Now I would have my two homerun switches trunked together and the others trunked as well

IDF.JPG

In your IDF 1 example I'd have SW2 and SW3 have an uplink to each SW1 and SW4, not to each other.

Ok, got it..makes sense and provides redundancy

i.e.

SW1 G0/1 - Core
SW4 G0/1 - Core

SW2 G0/1 to SW1 G0/2
SW3 G0/1 to SW4 G0/2

SW2 G0/3 to SW4 G0/3
SW3 G0/3 to SW1 G0/3

Is that what you were saying?

Yep, offers redundancy and you never have traffic going access -> access -> distribution in the event of a failure. All access switches have direct connections to both distribution switches.

Keep in mind you will want to make sure your 4506 is the root switch so your not accidentally passing all traffic through and IDF since you have redundancy.

I noticed you were using 3560's as an example; If your purchasing new switches I would look at the 2960S series of switches; not only are they stackable for your future upgrade but the backplane is much higher than the 3560's (better fit for a distribution layer switch)... and last time I checked they are cheaper than the 3560's.

Is the 4506 your core; or is it your distribution layer?

f0rgiv3n

xXErebuS wrote: »

I noticed you were using 3560's as an example; If your purchasing new switches I would look at the 2960S series of switches; not only are they stackable for your future upgrade but the backplane is much higher than the 3560's (better fit for a distribution layer switch)... and last time I checked they are cheaper than the 3560's.

AND the 2960S allows you to do cross-chassis/stack etherchannel!

xXErebuS wrote: »

Keep in mind you will want to make sure your 4506 is the root switch so your not accidentally passing all traffic through and IDF since you have redundancy.

I noticed you were using 3560's as an example; If your purchasing new switches I would look at the 2960S series of switches; not only are they stackable for your future upgrade but the backplane is much higher than the 3560's (better fit for a distribution layer switch)... and last time I checked they are cheaper than the 3560's.

Is the 4506 your core; or is it your distribution layer?

I'm throwing in 3560G switches in my IDF's, my core is dual 4507's

Let me look at these 2960S and see whats up with those in comparison to the 3560G. I replaced my last 3560 in my MDF with a 3560G last weekend and added some new line cards to my 4507's. I'm not sure if the purchase has gone threw on my quote for 11 3560G's or not..I want to read more on the 2960S so we shall see

*Edit*

I have been doing some reading on these 2960S and these look like a viable option to run in my IDF's, I love the Etherchannel possibilities and of course stacking in general. I want to get a few design scenarios completed soon and see how things work out. It's looking good on prices too, much cheaper than the 3560G

I'm still planning on home running to core and see how I can get Etherchannel involved there.

How many IDFs do you have?

Around 20 right now

Do you do WCCP / need large TCAM / Processor? Isnt dual 4500's a tad bit over kill for that many closets?.. Also if you do get 2960S' dont forget to order the stacking module.

No No and No! I have over 20 IDF's

I have some IDF configs drawn up, Standalone vs Stackable

Standalone, you will see that switches go Access->Distribution (no Access->Access)

FlexStack is typical with Etherchannel

2960S has a 176Gbps backplane vs 32Gbps on the 3560G

Any thoughts?

Standalone vs Stackable.jpg

You already know my opinion =D... also with the Stacks you can provision them; so you only have one switch in the closet you can provision switch 2-4 and have a lower end tech install them if your not available.... this may not be applicable to you but for networks that are world wide its nice to provision so when there is more ports needed you can ship them a router and a server guy at the location can install it =D.

I am going to hand this over today as my solution for my IDF's, it makes too much sense to go with this versus standalone 3560G's which give me redundant 1Gbps but having redundant 2-4Gbps sounds tasty to me and it's less admin overhead.

I am going to take a few 3560G's here and create an Etherchannel link between them to see for myself. Next question is, to go 10Gbps or to stay 1Gbps...i'm thinking if we go with the 10Gbps now to allow for future growth since they are compatible with 1Gbps SFP's

Roguetadhg

Always allow for future growth!

Im sure you don't want to run more wiring, or buy more modules.

My old internship had to rerun wiring throughout an old building because the IS admin didn't budget for future growth. 10 Mbps, baby. Went Fiber a few years back and the admin told me "More cost effective and less troublesome to do it once."

Probably because it's an old building, chopping up bricks and the like to get to the walls. Yeah...

Kinda hard to plan when they flip flop the core diam on the MM though =D

I've been running some throughput tests but it's hard to really push enough data across the new "2Gbps" Etherchannel, testing the redundancy of the etherchannel is nice. Simply popped one of the cables in the middle of a throughput test with no effect

I've got two 3560G-24 stacked on top of each other on my desk. I've got G0/25 & G0/27 in the channel group on both switches..anybody ever use netcps? I've used it for years to test throughput

I have a PC on each switch, then ran throughput tests end to end (NIC to NIC)

I changed the amount throughput with the -m command, first one being 2048

C:\Users\user1\Desktop>netcps -m2048 192.168.207.11
NetCPS 1.0 - Entering client mode. Press ^C to quit
Connecting to 10.0.207.11 port 4455... Connected!
---> CPS 24333634.00 KPS: 23763.31 MPS: 23.21
Avrg CPS 23069888.00 KPS: 22529.19 MPS: 22.00
Peek CPS 26042320.00 KPS: 25431.95 MPS: 24.84
Done. 2147483648 Kb transferred in 93.09 seconds.

C:\Users\user1\Desktop>netcps -m20000 192.168.207.11
NetCPS 1.0 - Entering client mode. Press ^C to quit
Connecting to 10.0.207.11 port 4455... Connected!
---> CPS 23952916.00 KPS: 23391.52 MPS: 22.84
Avrg CPS 23007730.00 KPS: 22468.49 MPS: 21.94
Peek CPS 24964796.00 KPS: 24379.68 MPS: 23.81
Done. 3791650816 Kb transferred in 164.80 seconds.

C:\Users\user1\Desktop>netcps -m400000 192.168.207.11
NetCPS 1.0 - Entering client mode. Press ^C to quit
Connecting to 10.0.207.11 port 4455... Connected!
---> CPS 23604512.00 KPS: 23051.28 MPS: 22.51
Avrg CPS 22095704.00 KPS: 21577.84 MPS: 21.07
Peek CPS 25765618.00 KPS: 25161.74 MPS: 24.57
Done. 2818572288 Kb transferred in 127.56 seconds.

Hmmm! I think I need a more accurate way to really see the increase utilizing 2GB Etherchannel versus a normal 1GB Trunk

Just doing one stream isn't going to show you the increase because of the way the load balancing is done. If you create multiple traffic streams that give different output on your hashing method it will allow for usage of both links.

networker050184 wrote: »

Just doing one stream isn't going to show you the increase because of the way the load balancing is done. If you create multiple traffic streams that give different output on your hashing method it will allow for usage of both links.

Good point and that is consistent with what my monitoring system has shown me.

Roguetadhg

Would: Network Traffic Generator | Free System Administration software downloads at SourceForge.net be applicable? I'm not sure what this generator does, I haven't used it myself.