Do I Need A Layer 3 Core Switch?
-
@scottalanmiller Sure, I meant that I thought the whole point of a VLAN was to segregate traffic/keep broadcasts domains smaller while utilizing the same physical switches.
-
@wrx7m said:
@scottalanmiller Sure, I meant that I thought the whole point of a VLAN was to segregate traffic/keep broadcasts domains smaller while utilizing the same physical switches.
Segregating traffic to broadcast domains for layer 2 doesn't imply that L3 isn't wide open between the subnets. In a typical network, you'd be wide open between them.
-
@scottalanmiller That is true, however, I am running in access mode to prevent cross communication and would like it to remain that way. Would a Layer 3 switch have the features to create ACLs for traffic on multiple VLANs across the same ports?
-
@wrx7m said:
@scottalanmiller That is true, however, I am running in access mode to prevent cross communication and would like it to remain that way. Would a Layer 3 switch have the features to create ACLs for traffic on multiple VLANs across the same ports?
Generally they will, but that was @Dashrender concern, that it would not.
-
OK. Got it. So since that is the goal, based on the size of the network and addition of 10GE for virtual hosts, I should consider a Layer 3 switch?
-
The 10 Gb in this case doesn't play a part in the decision making process, as far as I can see.
-
@Dashrender The layer 3 portion was for the inter-vlan traffic but the core aspect would be to provide the backbone bandwidth
-
What switch do you have in mind?
How many 10 Gb ports do you need? Will you run two for whichever r word will make Scott happier?
-
@Dashrender Ha! It would be a single as a core and I am not sure which switch I would use yet. I am still trying to see if all of it will be within my budget. For my virtual hosts I currently need 6 10GE (which I am leaning toward 2 switches to create some redundancy) and then I would ideally be stacking the switches with the others so I am not sure how it will all go together with the introduction of a core switch, stacking-wise.
-
I've never been responsible for a network that was large enough to have a core switch.
I have a HP 2824 (L3 switch) 1 GB switch with 4 ports that will take GBICs that I use for fiber.
connected to that I have two 2650-PWR switches for phones and endpoints.
I am planning on upgrading the 2824 to a UBNT Edgeswitch 48 which has two SPF +1 ports (10 Gbe) and two SPF 1 ports (1 Gb fiber)
I will eventually replace the 2650-pwr with 1 Gb switches in the future.
-
For the TOR switches for all my servers and virtual hosts and NAS, I am looking at using 2 of the Extreme Summit X460-G2-24t-10GE4. 24 ports of copper 1Gb and 4 ports of 10GE SPF+ and additional stacking ports on the back. For the edge switches for things like the access points, IP phones and desktops, I was looking at the Extreme Summit X450-G2-48P-10GE4 or the Extreme Summit X450-G2-48P-GE4.
-
wow, $3800/ea for the TOR switches...
-
Yeah, that is kind of why I was asking. Is this enough to warrant the consideration of something designed to be a core?
-
@Dashrender Don't forget to add the PSU(s)
-
I suppose that I could always get the TOR and Edge switches first and see how well it works and if I need to get better throughput from the LAN to the WIFI and vice versa, then I could add the "core" switch into the mix. Anyone have thoughts on this?
-
Not that it means anything - but I've never heard of Extreme Summit.
Any reason not to find a solution that has six 10 Gbe ports on a single switch?
-
@Dashrender said:
Not that it means anything - but I've never heard of Extreme Summit.
Not SMB gear. It's good stuff. Way better than Cisco.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
Not that it means anything - but I've never heard of Extreme Summit.
Not SMB gear. It's good stuff. Way better than Cisco.
What the deciding line when you move from, for lack of a better term, SMB stuff to - Way better than Cisco stuff?
-
@Dashrender Redundancy and I am almost positive that the switches that have more than 4 ports of SPF+ cost more than double. I think at that point you are looking at a core type switch.
-
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
Not that it means anything - but I've never heard of Extreme Summit.
Not SMB gear. It's good stuff. Way better than Cisco.
What the deciding line when you move from, for lack of a better term, SMB stuff to - Way better than Cisco stuff?
LOL, well if it is designed for large businesses or if it is "making due" equipment with lack of support, features, performance, etc. Cisco walks an odd line of having both enterprise gear and hobbyist crap and just horrible prices and rarely very good. Value is low, even when the quality is there.
It's hard to exactly describe a line, but it is pretty clear when you look at companies. Juniper, Adtran, Extreme, Palo Alto are enterprise gear. They expect network engineers to be involved.
Netgear, D-Link, Ubiquiti, etc. don't expect network engineers and are built for companies that need a bit less. Doesn't mean it is bad, it's just not meant for the same audience.
Some, like Dell and HP ride the line, leaning towards enterprise. But you'd see them in both places.
Similar to mini computers, you don't see them in the SMB. It's kind of commodity versus non-commodity.
