Thus spake Ejay Hire [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From my perspective...
...a physical mesh requires too many ports to be economical.
But, if one has the money, it's probably the better technical choice. Since
his folks are already familiar with having things set up PTP using some
other physical
Thus spake Scott Weeks [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: Stephen Sprunk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ITYM two big transit LANs -- one must be prepared for a
switch to fail.
These're going to be router-to-router connections (each AR
is connected to both CRs) and I had thought about tying them
all into one VLAN
- Original Message Follows -
From: Stephen Sprunk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Thus spake Scott Weeks [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: Stephen Sprunk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ITYM two big transit LANs -- one must be prepared for a
switch to fail.
These're going to be router-to-router connections (each
/up, you have a slow
failover, based on the timers of your IGP.
Ejay Hire
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On
Behalf Of Scott Weeks
Sent: Friday, February 24, 2006 8:03 PM
To: nanog@merit.edu
Subject: Transit LAN vs. Individual LANs
I
At 4:03 PM -1000 2/24/06, Scott Weeks wrote:
I have 2 core routers (CR) and 3 access routers (AR) ...
Optimal solution is to dual-home each AR via PTP links
into the CR's. This has the simplest topology, fewest
components, highest throughput, and highest availability.
The only reason not to do
--On February 25, 2006 11:04:12 AM -0500 Patrick W.
Gilmore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Feb 24, 2006, at 9:03 PM, Scott Weeks wrote:
I have 2 core routers (CR) and 3 access routers (AR)
currently connected point-to-point where each AR
connects to each CR for a total of 6 ckts.
On Feb 25, 2006, at 9:23 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
--On February 25, 2006 8:09:22 PM + Christopher L. Morrow
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, 25 Feb 2006, Neil J. McRae wrote:
An argument could be made for individual VLANs to keep things
like b- cast storms isolated. But I think
- Original Message Follows -
From: Stephen Sprunk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Patrick W. Gilmore [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: North American Noise and Off-topic Gripes
nanog@merit.edu
Subject: Re: Transit LAN vs. Individual LANs
Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2006 13:56:37 -0600
Thus spake Patrick W. Gilmore
On Mon, 27 Feb 2006, Warren Kumari wrote:
Now, seeing as Auto-Negotiation is required, it implies that automatic
MDI/MDI-X is also required -- however, certain vendors seem to ignore
this
Which ones?
-Dan
An argument could be made for individual VLANs to keep things like b-
cast storms isolated. But I think the additional complexity will
cause more problems than it will solve.
One must keep in mind that human error is the dominant cause of outages,
and since there's not likely to be
--On February 26, 2006 7:53:40 AM -0600 Pete Templin
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
An argument could be made for individual VLANs to keep things like b-
cast storms isolated. But I think the additional complexity will
cause more problems than it will solve.
One must keep in mind that
On Feb 24, 2006, at 9:03 PM, Scott Weeks wrote:
I have 2 core routers (CR) and 3 access routers (AR)
currently connected point-to-point where each AR connects to
each CR for a total of 6 ckts. Now someone has decided to
connect them with Gig-E. I was wondering about the benefits
or
An argument could be made for individual VLANs to keep things
like b- cast storms isolated. But I think the additional
complexity will cause more problems than it will solve.
Vlans will not stop all typres of broadcast storm.
--On February 25, 2006 11:04:12 AM -0500 Patrick W. Gilmore
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Feb 24, 2006, at 9:03 PM, Scott Weeks wrote:
I have 2 core routers (CR) and 3 access routers (AR)
currently connected point-to-point where each AR connects to
each CR for a total of 6 ckts. Now
Thus spake Patrick W. Gilmore [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Feb 24, 2006, at 9:03 PM, Scott Weeks wrote:
I have 2 core routers (CR) and 3 access routers (AR)
currently connected point-to-point where each AR connects to
each CR for a total of 6 ckts. Now someone has decided to
connect them with Gig-E.
On Sat, 25 Feb 2006, Neil J. McRae wrote:
An argument could be made for individual VLANs to keep things
like b- cast storms isolated. But I think the additional
complexity will cause more problems than it will solve.
Vlans will not stop all typres of broadcast storm.
So, perhaps I
On Sat, 25 Feb 2006 13:56:37 -0600
Stephen Sprunk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thus spake Patrick W. Gilmore [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Feb 24, 2006, at 9:03 PM, Scott Weeks wrote:
snip
There are a few advantages to going with PTP VLANs, such as eliminating
DR/BDR elections needed on shared
On Sun, 26 Feb 2006 08:41:45 +1030
Mark Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
To qualify this better, there are no DR/BDR on the segment at all,
rather than there being ones that just aren't used :
Automatic nighbour discovery via multicast hellos still happens, the
difference is that the routers
--On February 25, 2006 8:09:22 PM + Christopher L. Morrow
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, 25 Feb 2006, Neil J. McRae wrote:
An argument could be made for individual VLANs to keep things
like b- cast storms isolated. But I think the additional
complexity will cause more
I have 2 core routers (CR) and 3 access routers (AR)
currently connected point-to-point where each AR connects to
each CR for a total of 6 ckts. Now someone has decided to
connect them with Gig-E. I was wondering about the benefits
or disadvantages of keeping the ckts each in their own
20 matches
Mail list logo
