10-29-2014 04:20 PM - edited 03-07-2019 09:17 PM
Or the routing overhead is less if the Core is operating on L2?
For example:
Wan routers and Dist L3 switches connect to Core switches (L2)
Access layer L2 switches connects to Dist.
So Access layer SW's do Diffserv marking, Dist layer switches do queuing, the inter vlan routing as well as routing and the core only forwards traffic based on L2.
Is it a valid design? Should the core also have QoS?
Thanks!
Solved! Go to Solution.
10-29-2014 04:34 PM
Perhaps there is something in your perspective that I am not understanding. But from my perspective the core should ALWAYS operate at layer 3.
HTH
Rick
10-29-2014 06:15 PM
I am glad that my response was helpful. Thank you for using the rating system to mark this question as answered.
I have a couple of comments about this:
- The CCNP materials have some materials that look back to how things used to be as well as some materials that look forward at how things should be currently and in the future. Sometimes it is difficult to differentiate which are the historic aspects and which are the current/future aspects.
- We should differentiate between learning that things COULD be in a certain way and things SHOULD be in a certain way. So I would suggest that the core COULD be layer 2 but that it SHOULD be layer 3.
HTH
Rick
10-29-2014 04:34 PM
Perhaps there is something in your perspective that I am not understanding. But from my perspective the core should ALWAYS operate at layer 3.
HTH
Rick
10-29-2014 05:07 PM
Hi,
I am learning CCNP SW. There is written, Core layer can operate both L2 and L3.
From my point of view L3 core is also better.
10-29-2014 06:15 PM
I am glad that my response was helpful. Thank you for using the rating system to mark this question as answered.
I have a couple of comments about this:
- The CCNP materials have some materials that look back to how things used to be as well as some materials that look forward at how things should be currently and in the future. Sometimes it is difficult to differentiate which are the historic aspects and which are the current/future aspects.
- We should differentiate between learning that things COULD be in a certain way and things SHOULD be in a certain way. So I would suggest that the core COULD be layer 2 but that it SHOULD be layer 3.
HTH
Rick
10-30-2014 09:48 AM
Disclaimer
The Author of this posting offers the information contained within this posting without consideration and with the reader's understanding that there's no implied or expressed suitability or fitness for any purpose. Information provided is for informational purposes only and should not be construed as rendering professional advice of any kind. Usage of this posting's information is solely at reader's own risk.
Liability Disclaimer
In no event shall Author be liable for any damages whatsoever (including, without limitation, damages for loss of use, data or profit) arising out of the use or inability to use the posting's information even if Author has been advised of the possibility of such damage.
Posting
Yes, you can have a L2 core, but as Rick has noted, modern designs lean toward L3 cores.
There are, even today, pros and cons to each, but the biggest factor would be a modern L3 core would normally use L3 switches, rather than traditional routers. Generally you want the core to move packets as quickly as possible, and L2 switches were generally better at that than "traditional" routers. L3 switches, though, have nearly L2 switch performance, so the performance difference isn't much of issue any longer (especially with CEF L3 switches and/or MPLS).
BTW, not something you'll see in many current design documents, but modern L3 switches are so powerful and support so many ports, that you might have distribution and access just L2.
If you're doing QoS, yes I would recommend it also be enabled in the core too, L2 or L3.
Discover and save your favorite ideas. Come back to expert answers, step-by-step guides, recent topics, and more.
New here? Get started with these tips. How to use Community New member guide