From: Church, Charles (cchurc05@harris.com)
Date: Tue Sep 11 2007 - 15:56:47 ART
Like anything else in the IT world, there are many ways to accomplish
something, and many many more ways to do it poorly! Part of the problem
is that people don't fully understand real-world protocol limits or
hardware limitations. You definitely don't want have 200 access layer
switches all speaking OSPF in the same area, that's just as bad as
having those same 200 switches all participate in the same VLANs. And
every Cisco switch has a maximum number of spanning tree instances it'll
support when in PVST mode. Exceed it, and bad things will happen if you
don't see the log messages. I know Cisco was pushing routing protocols
down to the access layer a couple years ago, but since then, rapid
spanning tree and VTP version 3 have sort of helped those doing L2 down
to the access layer. Although VTP v3 is still a little scarce, software
support-wise... Cisco has a bunch of articles posted about good design
principals and scalability. Those are a great starting point.
HTH,
Chuck
-----Original Message-----
From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
Swan, Jay
Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2007 1:41 PM
To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: RE: VTP Server redundancy ?
One problem I see with routing to the access layer is the premium price
that Cisco charges for the IP Services image on the 3560 and 3750
switches. If you don't buy it, you're stuck with static routing, RIP, or
trunking.
Jay
-----Original Message-----
From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
Joseph Brunner
Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2007 10:39 AM
To: 'Tony Blanco'; thomas.rader@freesurf.ch; ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: RE: VTP Server redundancy ?
Actually you shouldn't design networks that need vlans switched all over
the
place anymore... it's just a bad design. I can tell you first hand all
the
problems I have seen as a consultant these last 2 years fixing messes
almost
daily.
The best designed network has no trunks; If a company buys layer 2
switches,
the trunks should minimize the number of vlans allowed on the trunks,
and
even then I can't see using more than 2 or 3 vlans per switch. Its 2007
already, we have 3560G's and 3750's like water.
(I can't wait for the CCDE)
Joe,
Senior CCDP
-----Original Message-----
From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
Tony
Blanco
Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2007 12:31 PM
To: thomas.rader@freesurf.ch; ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: Re: VTP Server redundancy ?
Have multiples VTP servers on your netwok...and get used to make changes
from one......but you can make changes from any one .... remember that
all
your vtp configuration has to be exactly the same....
blancoj17
----- Original Message ----
From: "thomas.rader@freesurf.ch" <thomas.rader@freesurf.ch>
To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2007 11:38:45 AM
Subject: VTP Server redundancy ?
I'm hoping someone can help me with VTP Server redundancy.
Is it was simple as having two VTP servers in a VTP domain, or am I
missing
something ?
Thanks
Thomas
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Oct 06 2007 - 12:01:10 ART