Home Network and Multiple Switches

[jasonreg416]

Hi, I am upgrading my small office network as I have run out of ports on my Cisco SG100-24 unmanaged switch. I have purchased another SG100-24 which will give me the ports required. My question is how best to connect them.

I am currently using my ISP`s modem to a Cisco RV320 router to the first SG100-24. I see two obvious options here one being just daisy chain them or just connect them each to the router as more of a tree approach. I also have a 8 port switch (SG200-08) but not sure I need it any longer with the new 24 port switch though it is a "Smart-Switch".  I guess I am curious if there is any benefit of using the mini-GBIC combo ports (with or without buying the modules) or just to run both switches through the RV320.  I also use a 4410 WAP so my current pan is as follows:

1. Port 1 of RV320 -> SG100-24#1
2. Port 2 of RV320 -> SG100-24#2
3. Port 3 of RV320 -> WAP4410N
4. Port 4 of RV320 -> Server

I would appreciate thoughts and suggestions especially as it pertains to the Mini GBIC combo ports.

[Aleksandra Dargiel]

Hi Jason,

It pretty much depends on pattern of your traffic.

1. If you have all users mainly connecting to internet I guess current setup is correct.

2. If you however have LAN server which is accessed by many users you may try to move this traffic out of the router so the server and hosts are connected via switch to the router and not directly. 

3. Since you also have SG200 switch you may also consider creating VLANs to limit broadcast domain. That would be applicable if you can group users/hosts in different categories basing on their traffic pattern. for example guests and office...

I hope it gives you some idea.

Aleksandra

[jasonreg416]

Thanks Aleksandra, I do notice that the switching capacity ad forwarding performance of the SG200-08 is quite a bit lower than the SG100-24 switches.....not sure it makes sense to add this in the fray unless you think otherwise.

[Aleksandra Dargiel · Accepted solution]

Hi Jason,

There are few ways to accomplish the same.

1. You may, as Mike suggested sue physical isolation and each of SG100 switches place in different VLAN interconnected via RV320 router.

2. If you need more ports for one of the VLANs than perhaps physical isolation would not be possible then you may need to add SG200-08. You may try to disable some settings which can improve performance such as Bonjour, Smartports macro, even STP and Green Ethernet.

I hope this helps a bit.

Aleksandra

[Michael Vandergrift · Accepted solution]

Jason,

The only advantage you would get from using SFPs (fiber tranceivers) in the GBIC slots would be if you needed to make a run of over 100m between the switches.  Unless you have a very large property with switches at either end you are just as well to use the copper ports in the setup you described.  There is also nothing wrong with chaining the SG100s together if necessary to free up a port on the RV320.  The only other thing to consider is if you are using VLANs.  Each unmanaged SG100 will only pass a single VLAN so if you need segregated distribution coming from the RV320 you would need to put each SG100 on its own port.  Or, you could run a trunk from a port on the RV320 to your SG200 and then split off your untagged VLANs from there.  Hope this answers your question and have a nice day.

Regards,

Mike.V

[jasonreg416]

This is interesting because as I was thinking about how to split the connections there does seem to be logical groupings.  That said, as I understand VLANs (which is not well truthfully) there is no comm between the VLANs so this may actually not work unless I can get shared networked printers connected differently assuming the server is on one of the VLANs ...hmmmm

[Michael Vandergrift]

InterVLAN communication is facilitated by a layer 3 device (i.e the RV320). 

[jasonreg416]

Hi – rather than starting a new thread, I thought I would piggyback on this one as I believe the two are related. I recently suffered a network failure due in part or in whole to my Sonos system. I have 12 Sonos components spread over a fairly large house (over several floors) and as such have elected to hardwire most of them vice rely solely on the SONOS “mesh” wireless network.

It would seem that having that there is a problem with my router and or the way I had the Sonos components connected. Form the Sonos help page I see this known issue with Cisco RV series Routers

“Cisco RV Series Wiring more than one Sonos component to the router causes a broadcast storm. Log into the router's administration panel and navigate to L2 Switch > RSTP and check 'Protocol Enable' on all ports”

My issue is that I cannot find this option or where to make these changes when I log into the router.

I also see configuration suggestions for an SG300 series switch and that the 200 series switches have Standard 802.1d STP support and Fast convergence using 802.1w (Rapid Spanning Tree [RSTP]), enabled by default which I think would also resolve the issue.

So, given my current components:

1. Router RV320
2. Switches available (2 x SG-100-24 unmanaged and 1 x SG200-08 managed)
3. Many Sonos Components most of which wired to where the switches are located but some still using the proprietary Sonos Mesh Network (which cannot be disabled)

I would appreciate suggestions to prevent another broadcast storm (assuming that is what is was).

Or do I need to go shopping for a new layer 3 switch to deal with this?

Many thanks in advance