I second your arguments, Chuck. I worked on a scenario with varying subnet
sizes
due to some inherent limitations on how robots & PLC's work (no default
gateways). I had subnets
of size 1024 with >500 machines on each subnet. PC traffic is difficult to
predict because of human users but machines are predictible.
Habeeb
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chuck Larrieu [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2000 11:47 AM
> To: Donald B Johnson Jr; jeongwoo park; Groupstudy
> Subject: RE: Why not supernetting?
>
> Just to be argumentative, it is not necessarily true that 500 hosts on a
> single network / wire will result in a crippled network. As always, it is
> the usage that will determine the result.
>
> I once interviewed with a very large bank. The network team there was
> required to have extensive protocol analysis expertise because, in the
> words
> of the interviewer, we have very large segments, and we want to eliminate
> problems as son as we hear about them. He told me they had as many as 1200
> machines on a subnet!!!!! Obviously, in most circumstances, the network
> folks believed that performance was satisfactory. They did apparently
> spent
> a lot of time tracking down misbehaving NIC's :->
>
> Cisco's published recommendations about maximum hosts on a subnet /
> broadcast domain are general recommendations. I suggest that if you have
> folks doing extensive sharing of Autocad files, or extensive desktop video
> conferencing, or extensive VoIP, even the Cisco recommendations may be too
> large for reliable LAN performance. On the other hand, if all you are
> doing
> is SNA emulation. 500 may not be bad at all.
>
> Chuck
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of
> Donald B Johnson Jr
> Sent: Friday, November 10, 2000 9:00 AM
> To: jeongwoo park; Groupstudy
> Subject: Re: Why not supernetting?
>
> Your problem seems to be insufficient hardware.
> Supernetting five subnets and putting 500 stations on one segement will
> cripple your network.
> Duck
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: jeongwoo park <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: Groupstudy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2000 2:13 PM
> Subject: Why not supernetting?
>
>
> > Hi All,
> >
> > I am looking for advice on a LAN performance issue. i
> > am running primarily NT4 and win2K boxes on a 100Mbit
> > UTP Ethernet LAN.
> >
> > my servers are on static IPs on one subnet while my
> > clients pick up DHCP addresses (assigned out of my
> > control) in any one of half a dozen other subnets.
> > file transfer and printing performance between client
> > and server is averaging 1Mbit/sec when computers are
> > in different subnets. switch the same two computers to
> > static IPs in the same subnet and throughput jumps to
> > a respectable 30-70Mbit/sec. i need to keep the
> > clients on DHCP as i don't have enough static IPs to
> > go around for the subnet the servers are in.
> >
> > all clients and servers are attached to one of 5
> > Allied Telesyn 8126XL 24-port managed switches. all 5
> > of these "edge" switches connect to another switch of
> > the same model with a 100Mbit multi-mode (1300
> > nanometer) fiber uplink which connects to a Cisco
> > Catalyst 5500 for our routing needs.
> >
> > When the clients are on different subnets the file
> > transfers appear to take a long trip through the
> > router with a huge performance penalty (1Mbit/sec).
> > when the client and server are on the same subnet the
> > packets do NOT appear to be routed (perhaps they are
> > handled using ARP?) and the performance is very good.
> > ping response times on both switches and routers is
> > under 20ms. This is where I believe supernetting could
> > be a solution to this slowness, because I think
> > supernetting allows me to put all stations in the same
> > subnet, witch avoids routing needs.
> >
> > I got some responses to my previous post from people
> > saying that supernetting would slow down the speed
> > because there would be too many stations in big
> > broadcast domain, which contradicts what I am willing
> > to do.
> >
> > Am i missing some key concepts here that might improve
> > my understanding of this tragic performance?
> >
> >
> > any help would be greatly appreciated.
> >
> > take care,
> >
> > jw
> >
> >
> > __________________________________________________
> > Do You Yahoo!?
> > Thousands of Stores. Millions of Products. All in one Place.
> > http://shopping.yahoo.com/
> >
> > _________________________________
> > FAQ, list archives, and subscription info:
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
> > Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> _________________________________
> FAQ, list archives, and subscription info:
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
> Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> _________________________________
> FAQ, list archives, and subscription info:
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
> Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
_________________________________
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
