L3 switch -OR- L2 switch+router

[krzysztof.frukacz]

Hello,

I would like to ask for your help with choosing a switch for my network.

What I have:

-Office #1. 25 users (PCs + VoIP phones) with Cisco ASA which does QoS and security

-Cisco 1841 Router

-50Mbps internet connection (supplied over ethernet cable)

-Potential more users as they connect from other offices in the near future

The router should be able to handle 50Mbps, but without any advanced config (it is rated 38 Mbps for 64b packets). But I can substitute it with another model, or Linux based software router in the future as the internet connection speed may be increased.

What I need is a SWITCH that:

-has VLANs

-supports trunking

-supports QoS (to offload the router). At least ingress limiting to (for example) 10Mbps per vlan/office/port

-some ACL contol for basic security

-support for 50-200 users

-has PoE on some ports for potential future access point installation

-costs up to $800

My choice is Catalyst 2960 or SF500 series. My real headache started when I found that SF500 is layer 3 switch which can be used instead of the router(?), with excelent L3 routing perfommance (internet connection speed may be increased). No need for BGP etc. Just simple default route to my ISP and routing VLANs to ISP and back with bandwidth limiting.

Can any one point me to the best choice? Is a L3 switch a good idea for that setup?

BR

[Edison Ortiz]

Based on number of users, budget and requirement - the SF500 or 2960 are very sound choices.

I want to inform you while 2960 is listed as L2 switch, you can do basic unicast routing on it. It does not support routing protocols:

http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/switches/lan/catalyst2960/software/release/12.2_55_se/configuration/guide/swipstatrout.html

[krzysztof.frukacz]

Thank you for that information. I have not seen anything about Catalyst 2960 being able to do L3 switching.

Is there any information on the L3 switching performance on Catalyst?

Also I have read that 2960 supports only 16 routes. That is very low. May not be enough is the network grows a bit.

This article

http://www.cisco.com/en/US/prod/collateral/switches/ps10903/ps12128/stackable_switches.pdf shows Sx500 switches performance. Page 27 shows "Throughput and Frame loss" table. Can somebody confirm that this is L3 or L2 throughput? Or is it the same sice L3 is "wire-speed". Is there any similar table for Catalyst 2960?

And my last question is there ANY reason I should use a router to connect several offices to the ISP? No BGP, no dynamic routing protocols needed. Just simple QoS to assure CIR and network segmentation.

[Alessio Andreoli]

Hi Krysztof,
A router would be a better choice because it will let you work with a much bigger flexibility and will make possible solutions which layer2 devices and most of the layer 3 switches cannot do. On top of that, you must not forget that an ISP could change policies or CE to PE implementation. Configuration wise, there would no be any issue with a router while you could find issues with simple L2 catalyst. At last, but not last, there is security. Even ignoring the QoS choices, the flexibility,the scalability, the multiple routing solution you could implement towards your ISP as well as the customer, you will never be able to defend your customer/LAN/Infrasrtucture with a L2 catalyst as much as you could do with a router with security features enabled.

Go router, you will not regret.

Hope to help
Alessio

Sent from Cisco Technical Support iPad App

[krzysztof.frukacz]

Thank you Alessio.

"L2 switch only" solution is out the question. The only possible opition for me is "traditional" L2 switch+router or L3 switch.

Lets assume that ISP CE to PE policy will not change. Funny thing is that if it changes to optical fiber I will not be able to buy an interface to my old Cisco 1841 (because there is none supported), but there is a lot of optical interfaces for the SF500/SG500

As it comes for security, I can see that L3 switches support ACLs, QoS shaping.

I do not need BGP, OSPF or even RIP in this setup, the routing solution here is very simple. Static will do.

All in all I still do not see any adventages of using a router in this setup over L3 switch. Can you point any?

Also: can you tell which switch choice is better and why: SF500 or Catalyst 2960? Is there any QoS, ACL, VLAN etc. feature that is not supported by one platform, but available on the other?

[Edison Ortiz]

The forwarding rate is listed on the following article

http://www.cisco.com/cisco/web/solutions/small_business/products/routers_switches/catalyst_2960_series_switches/docs/Catalyst_2960_Series_Switches_LAN_Lite_DS_FINAL.pdf

If 16 routes are not enough, then proceed with the SF500.

Keep in mind, a router provides enhanced services (QoS, Security, Netflow, etc) while the switch provides performance throughput.

Additionally, the SF500 is web-based from what I read. You will be limited to the options presented on the web portal.

The 2960 allows you for more customization as it is an enterprise based solution with CLI access.

Your decision to make...