2+1 core switch

[josephschung]

The existing network has 2 x 4006 switch of the following configuration:

1 x Sup II

1 x Layer 3 services engine

4 x 48-port RJ45 line card

The two 4006 are linked together for resilience and using EIGRP for routing protocol.

The user get a budget to buy one switch 4507R with the following configuration:

1 x WS-C4507R

1 x PWR-C45-1400AC

1 x PWR-C45-1400AC/2

1 x WS-X4516

1 x WS-X4516/2

1 x S4KL3EK9-12225EWA

1 x MEM-C4K-FLD128M

3 x WS-X4148-RJ

2 x WS-X4548-GB-RJ45

The network is supporting 200 PC and 50 servers and some firewall etc.

What do you think is the best way to make the best use of the additional switch?

Thanks,

Joseph

[Edison Ortiz]

Dual Supe V would make the new switch the ideal device for core routing.

I suggest moving the 4006 to access switches and serve the PCs and have them both collapse down to the 4507R. The 4507R would serve as core router and access switch for the 50 servers.

[josephschung]

But in case 4507R is down, all server will be down together. Should we consider to evenly distribute the servers and PCs?

[Jon Marshall]

Hi Joseph

The fact that you have dual supervisors and dual power supplies gives you almost the same level of redundancy that you have at the moment with your 4006 switches.

One thing you must ensure is that your servers if they are dual honed are connected to different modules inthe 4507R otherwise a failure in one of the modules could mean you lose all your servers.

HTH

Jon

[josephschung]

Right, but the servers have single network card only at the movement.

You said we can let the 4006 as the access layer, do you mean the three switches will be connected as a ring? There are links between the 4006s now.

[Jon Marshall]

Joseph

Your 4006 switches do not need to be connected to each other but they do need to have dual connections back to the 4507R for redundancy.

Jon