I would put each remote office in it's own subnet, just like you do now. The broadcast traffic you mention is a good reason to do so. Another good reason is it will minimize the changes going into your environment.
Be careful with the HP switches - not all of them are fully functional layer 3 switches. They might do hardware IP routing but the design of the routing engine is such that they are limited to 128 MAC addresses and support a limited number of static routes. HP calls the feature set "light layer 3". Examples are the ProCurve 2600 series and ProCurve 2800 series. I don't think that limit will be a problem for the branch offices - if you had a large enough environment where you had 100+ ethernet-attached devices at one or more branches you would not be asking us these questions - but it is something to keep in mind for HQ. On 5/13/2010 2:42 PM, [email protected] wrote: > The question is, which of the two methods would you use? Putting the > Fiber WAN link on it's own network or, not? > > One other question. Since my HP switches at the main/remote sites are able > to do IP Routing, would you also remove the routers (which are needed with > the current T1 WAN links) completly from the enviroment and do all routing > at the switch level? I'm leaning towards doing this and ditching the > routers. -- Phil Brutsche [email protected] ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/> ~
