Adding Metro E to connect remote site site - Page 3

wilson_1234_2 · ‎07-08-2009

We currently have a routed connection to a site in a city accross the state.

The DR site is configured with a totally seperate VLAN config.

For example everything in the Main site is 10.100.x.x\24,

10.100.1.x\24 servers

10.100.2.x\24 printers

10.100.3.x\24 workstations

Remote site is 10.200.x.x\24

10.200.1.x\24 servers

10.200.2.x\24 printers

10.200.3.x\24 workstations

When we move from routed to Metro E to connect this site, is a trunk to the other site the way to go to connect the other site VLANs to the main site VLANS?

We have 5-060 VLANs in the main site and 20-30 VLANS in the remote site.

mbroberson1 · ‎07-17-2009

But with the router method at both the hub and remote ends it basically works like Point-to-point circuits...sort of? Where you can do the QoS service-policy and apply to oustside interface facing ISP hand-off on each side?

Thanks,

Brandon

Edison Ortiz · ‎07-17-2009

It's a point-to-multipoint connection as your router is connected to a switched network so creating the subinterfaces in the router allows you to carry additional Vlans and L3 subnets - so don't use the term point-to-point :)

You are correct on the QoS and I want to expand a bit, if you go with the SIP/SPA option on the 6500, you will need to create subinterfaces on the Ethernet SPA for QoS shaping support.

HTH,

__

Edison.

wilson_1234_2 · ‎07-20-2009

Edison, another couple of questions on the Metro E connection using routers:

In the examples shown in this post, the Subinterfaces on the router would be for the VLANs to be trunked from one end of the Metro E connection to the other, but in my scenario, I would only be trunking a few VLANs and routing the others(keeping the VLANs and IP Addressing seperate).

HQ_VLANs.......................DR_VLANs

6509--->7206-->Metro_E-->7206-->3750

If I were to combine the two examples here (switch and router), and since my switches are layer three switches on both ends running OSPF, would it look like the below?

HQ router:

On the ISP facing interface, say F0/1

interface FastEthernet0/1

no ip address

speed 100

full-duplex

!

interface FastEthernet0/1.xxx

description WAN point-to-point to ISP for routed subnets

encapsulation dot1Q xxx

ip add 10.100.1.1 255.255.255.252

!

interface FastEthernet0/2.xxx

encapsulation dot1q [Your_Trunked_Vlan]

!

interface FastEthernet0/3.xxx

encapsulation dot1q [Your_Trunked_Vlan]

Internal Facing Interface

interface FastEthernet0/0

no ip address

speed 100

full-duplex

!

interface FastEthernet0/0.1

description LAN point-to-point switch for routed subnets

encapsulation dot1Q 1 native

ip add 10.101.1.1 255.255.255.252

!

interface FastEthernet0/0.2

description Trunked to DR

encapsulation dot1q [Your_Trunked_Vlan]

!

interface FastEthernet0/0.3

description Trunked to DR

encapsulation dot1q [Your_Trunked_Vlan]

router ospf 1

network 10.100.1.0 0.0.0.3 area 0

network 10.101.1.0 0.0.0.3 area 0

HQ Switch:

interface FastEthernet0/0

no ip address

speed 100

full-duplex

!

interface FastEthernet0/0.1

description LAN point-to-point for routed subnets

encapsulation dot1Q 1 native

ip add 10.101.1.1 255.255.255.252

!

interface FastEthernet0/0.2

description Trunked to DR

encapsulation dot1q [Your_Trunked_Vlan]

!

interface FastEthernet0/0.3

description Trunked to DR

encapsulation dot1q [Your_Trunked_Vlan]

router ospf 1

network 10.101.1.0 0.0.0.3 area 0

network [VLANs to be routed] area 0

Also, if there was an option between a Metro E connection or a DS3,is there any difference in performance or amount of traffic going across the Metro E link configured per the above, as opposed to using the DS3 and bridging the desired VLAN traffic and routing the rest?

Basically, it is doing the same thing, but in reverse. Is there a performance benefit with using the Metro E connection (assuming the same bandwidth) over the DS3 with bridging configured?

The broadcast traffic would be the same correct?

Edison Ortiz · ‎07-20-2009

Richard,

Per your requirements of 'trunking some Vlans while routing others' you need a switch as the CE device instead of a router.

While you can use the subinterface method to tag Vlans on the interface, this method won't extend the L2 information via the router. If you want to extend L2 information via the router, you need to use Integrated Routing and Bridging (IRB) which can complicate things. This approach is much cleaner with a switch design.

As the differences between a DS3 and a Metro-E, hmm just about 65Mbps :) Kidding aside, a Metro-E delivers high bandwidth at a much cheaper price than DS3. DS3 is often seen when interconnecting sites that aren't close in proximity while Metro as the name implies is for same city interconnects.

wilson_1234_2 · ‎07-20-2009

Thanks Edison,

"While you can use the subinterface method to tag Vlans on the interface, this method won't extend the L2 information via the router."

Is this because of what you mentioned earlier, in the post that the prider will strip VLAN tags off on their trunk to the remote side?

I was thinking along the lines of comparison of the two technlogies and performance, if both had the same bandwidth.

We currently are using x2 point to point DS3s in a remote city, but have the option of gouing to a Metro E.

I was wondering if the Bridging (usually frowned upon) the VLANs via the router, rather than the Metro E is basically the same performance wise.

Doesn't the router add the layer two headers in the routed packet during rouing to the remote side?

This would be less efficient than the switch doing the trunking correct?

I was also thinking that the router would allow more options with QoS than the switch would.

Edison Ortiz · ‎07-20-2009

Yes, the router has the ability to send and receive tag 802.1q packets but it won't extend the L2 domain end-to-end with subinterfaces.

There are similar technologies but the hardware required for each technology differs. For DS3, the CE must be a router or a high end modular switch while for Metro, the CE can be a router or any switch.

Bridging on a router can never be compared to L2 switching on a regular switch. It's night and day. Stay away from bridging on a router if possible.

Doesn't the router add the layer two headers in the routed packet during rouing to the remote side?

You lost me there. The router will add its own MAC address on the L2 header when sending the packet to the Metro-E network.

I was also thinking that the router would allow more options with QoS than the switch would.

This is when you get a 6500 with a SIP and Ethernet SPAs.

wilson_1234_2 · ‎07-20-2009

For bridging layer 2 across a routed link:

Doesn't the router add the layer two headers in the routed packet during routing to the remote side?

Edison Ortiz · ‎07-20-2009

If you are bridging on a router, you don't have a routed link, you will have the L3 information under the BVI hence my confusion on your question.

The router's physical port will be strictly L2 ports and will function similar to a switch.

mbroberson1 · ‎11-10-2009

Hi Edison,

It's been a while since we posted on this. Have a question:

If the Metro Ethernet service the provider is provisioning is non-QinQ how much will that matter with the configuration?

Thanks

mbroberson1 · ‎07-24-2009

Hi Edison,

One question comes to mind on the ME setup. With the HUB and remotes as routers and using the sub-interfaces. If you are running EIGRP over the WAN (between hub and remote sites) will any certain (special) EIGRP configuration be needed on the hub and/or remotes? Just curious.

Thanks,

Brandon

Edison Ortiz · ‎07-24-2009

Brandon,

As long as you enter the corresponding subinterface subnet under the EIGRP process, the adjacency should take place without problems.

mbroberson1 · ‎07-24-2009

Hi Edison,

That's what I was thinking. I just wasn't sure if for some reason I should unicast the updates to each neighbor or something else.

My reason for this was I wasn't sure if I would get the message "not on common subnet" or similar message.

Thanks

Edison Ortiz · ‎07-24-2009

Each subnet has a corresponding Vlan tag. You may see this message if you mix the Vlan tag assignment on the edge routers.

mbroberson1 · ‎07-24-2009

Great,

So just make sure I have the vlan tag "dot1q" numbers (for corresponding peers on same segment) assigned correctly and to the same.

Thanks,

Brandon

wilson_1234_2 · ‎08-21-2009

Edison,

I have a question if we go the route you originally mentioned using switches:

The MetroE is layer 2, as I mentioned, I want to trunk a few vlans and route the others,

Would we be able to use a WAN optimization appliance on the routed vlans, which, the one we are looking at is a layer three appliance (silverpeek)?