<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>topic Re: Optimizing Network Design with underpowered gear. in Cloud Networking Platform</title>
    <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/cloud-networking-platform/optimizing-network-design-with-underpowered-gear/m-p/5454109#M12527</link>
    <description>&lt;P&gt;Thanks! Sounds good, but in this setup what's the best way to handle the handoff.  I have a /29.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;If I connect MX1 to Core Switch 1, and MX2 to Core Switch 2 could/should I still setup the MX's in a master/passive setup with a VIP between the two?&lt;/P&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Sun, 12 May 2019 16:24:47 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>LB31</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2019-05-12T16:24:47Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>Optimizing Network Design with underpowered gear.</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/cloud-networking-platform/optimizing-network-design-with-underpowered-gear/m-p/5454107#M12525</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;We have a large client that had a limited budget so the switches purchased are not idea for a client their size and the industry they are in but the Cap Ex hit is making us implement and design with what they have.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;The client has:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;(2) MX84&lt;BR /&gt;(7) MS120-48LP &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;(1) MS120-24LP&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;(12) AP's&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;With the MS120's only supporting Virtual Stacking what is the best way to design the network with redundancy in mind.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;My thought is to designate two of the switches as uplink/distribution type switches and uplink each additional switch to those with one port in each and then have the two "distribution" switches uplink to both MX's individually?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Any thoughts or suggestions? Am I overcomplicating the setup?&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Sun, 12 May 2019 05:02:34 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/cloud-networking-platform/optimizing-network-design-with-underpowered-gear/m-p/5454107#M12525</guid>
      <dc:creator>LB31</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2019-05-12T05:02:34Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Optimizing Network Design with underpowered gear.</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/cloud-networking-platform/optimizing-network-design-with-underpowered-gear/m-p/5454108#M12526</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;I would make two of the switches a core switches.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I would connect MX1 to core switch1, and MX2 to core switch2.  I would not dual connect the MX's.  There are two many issues around spanning tree.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I would make core switch1 have a spanning tree priority of 0.  I would make core switch2 have a spanning tree priority of 4096.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Then you can dual connect every other switch to the two core switches.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Sun, 12 May 2019 06:28:12 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/cloud-networking-platform/optimizing-network-design-with-underpowered-gear/m-p/5454108#M12526</guid>
      <dc:creator>Philip D'Ath</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2019-05-12T06:28:12Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Optimizing Network Design with underpowered gear.</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/cloud-networking-platform/optimizing-network-design-with-underpowered-gear/m-p/5454109#M12527</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Thanks! Sounds good, but in this setup what's the best way to handle the handoff.  I have a /29.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;If I connect MX1 to Core Switch 1, and MX2 to Core Switch 2 could/should I still setup the MX's in a master/passive setup with a VIP between the two?&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Sun, 12 May 2019 16:24:47 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/cloud-networking-platform/optimizing-network-design-with-underpowered-gear/m-p/5454109#M12527</guid>
      <dc:creator>LB31</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2019-05-12T16:24:47Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Optimizing Network Design with underpowered gear.</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/cloud-networking-platform/optimizing-network-design-with-underpowered-gear/m-p/5454110#M12528</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Yes I would use a warm spare configuration for the MX.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Unless you have a seperate external switch, you'll need to put 3 ports into a seperate VLAN.  I would make them all access ports.  Then plug in your ISP, and WAN1 of your two MX.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Sun, 12 May 2019 20:24:08 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/cloud-networking-platform/optimizing-network-design-with-underpowered-gear/m-p/5454110#M12528</guid>
      <dc:creator>Philip D'Ath</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2019-05-12T20:24:08Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Optimizing Network Design with underpowered gear.</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/cloud-networking-platform/optimizing-network-design-with-underpowered-gear/m-p/5454111#M12529</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;We have some sort of the same setup.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I've put the MX in WARM spare.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;2 MS into a stack&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;connected all access switches with LACP to the stack (2 interfaces, each to a member of the stack)&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;connected the access points across odd &amp;amp; even numbered switches.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;spread the odd &amp;amp; even access points between left and right parts of the building and floors.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;This way we can have maintenance on the MX, the MS Stack, and spread the maintenance between odd &amp;amp; even access switches and access points while maintaining lots of the connectivity.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;STRONG&gt;MX&lt;/STRONG&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;The MX is connected to 2 internet providers by using a WAN break out switch. 1 per provider.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;And a transit subnet of /29 per provider.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;The failover link between the MX's only allows 1 "warm spare"  vlan.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;The MX is connected to the MS stack using a trunk containing vlan 1 and a transit vlan 2.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;The physical interfaces are not LACP.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Vlan 1 serves as DHCP server.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;vlan 2 is connected to a SVI interface on the MS Stack.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;STRONG&gt;MS&lt;/STRONG&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;The MS has several vlan's, each vlan has it's own DHCP served by the MS Stack.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;We use ACL's to secure some traffic, MS does not support ICMP in ACL unfortunately.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;These ACL's are quite some hasle as they are vlan ACL's and not L3 interface ACL's &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;STRONG&gt;MR&lt;/STRONG&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;The access-points are connected with trunks to the MS CORE&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;On 1 SSID we use 2 vlan's with Layer 3 roaming.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 24 Jul 2019 10:22:27 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/cloud-networking-platform/optimizing-network-design-with-underpowered-gear/m-p/5454111#M12529</guid>
      <dc:creator>sebastianvandijk</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2019-07-24T10:22:27Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

