Redundant Uplink Question

[gdrandles]

I have a question about the picture attached.  The diagram shows each Cisco 4948 connecting to each Cisco 6506.  Since there are only two 10GB ports, there are no ports available to connect the Cisco 4948 (trunk) to each other. 

I currently have one 10GB port on each Cisco 4948 (OSPF) connected to each Cisco 6506 (core).  I then have the second 10GB port on each Cisco 4948 connected to each other via a trunk link.  Is there performance advantages of setting up the redundant paths one way or the other?

Thanks,

[lgijssel]

Hi,

How to connect your uplinks will depend on whether your network uses L2 or L3 between access and distribution.

The following document covers the topic extensively:

http://www.cisco.com/application/pdf/en/us/guest/netsol/ns431/c649/ccmigration_09186a008093b876.pdf

regards,

Leo

[Richard Michael]

Hello,

The WS-C4948 is a 48 port non-blocking switch with 3 ASIC's, Packet Processing Engine (PPE), Fast Forward Engine (FFE) & Netflow (NFL) and it would depend on the nature of the input packet how/what ASIC will deal with

it.

Now all ports are directly connected to the shared memory fabric. If one of the three ASICs has problem, then all 48 ports will be affected.

Also the Cat4948 is non-blocking i.e. they are not over blocking; meaning the sum of all inputs is equal to or less than the capacity of the switching fabric. Supports 96 Gbps switching fabric with a 72 Mpps forwarding rate in

hardware for Layer 2-4 traffic. so choosing a uplink port doesnt make any difference in 4948.

Now in 6500 it purely depends on where you choose your uplink whether its from the linecard or from the supervisor itself.

Please go through the below link for a detailed understanding.

https://supportforums.cisco.com/message/3413719#3413719

Thanks,

Ricky Micky

*Pls rate useful posts