cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
cancel
1541
Views
5
Helpful
3
Replies

Summarization on distribution-to-distribution switches

DaSt-1986
Beginner
Beginner

Hi there,

I'm studying for my CCDP exam and came across an interesting discussion; if you create an campus network according to Cisco design guidelines with a layer three link between the distribution switches and a IGP, should you summarize the networks between these distribution switches.

Note; I'm talking about the link between the distribution switches, not between the Core and Distribution layer.

My arguments against summarizing these subnets, is that a local switch block usual doesn't contain much subnets, so summarizing wouldn't increase performance that much. Then why summarize?

I cannot find the correct answer in my CCDP book and the Cisco design documents don't provide me with an answer either. What do you think?

Daryl

3 Replies 3

DaSt-1986
Beginner
Beginner

Additional to this;

https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/solutions/Enterprise/Campus/HA_campus_DG/hacampusdg.html

First, it saids

Connect distribution nodes to facilitate summarization and L2 VLANs spanning multiple access layer switches where required.

Further on it saids:

It is important to summarize routing information as it leaves the distribution nodes towards the core for both EIGRP and OSPF.

Turns out this is a classical "just try it out"-situation. I build this in Packet Tracer to see what would happen. I build the following network:

 

L3DisWithSummary.png

I created a routed design between the distribution and summarized the LAN networks to 172.16.1.0/24. I advertise this summary via EIGRP to the Core and between the Distribution switches. The summary route is installed in the routing table of both distribution switches:

D       172.16.1.0/24 is a summary, 00:18:01, Null0

I use a looped layer two design between the distribution and access layer so I can use HSRP for the VLANs. I aligned the PVSTP root and HSRP priority for these VLANs so DIS01 is primary for VLAN10 and VLAN20 and DIS02 is primary for VLAN30 and VLAN40. This way, we do a little load balancing over the switches (although this results in assymetric routing from the core since it uses ECMP).

Now, when I disable a VLAN on one of the distribution switches, it removes the local connected subnet from the routing table, but a new route isn't added; the other distribution switch only advertises a summary route which doesn't get installed in the routing table since it already has a route with the same prefix to a local connected interface (Null0, as seen above). More specific routes are not advertised. This creates a black hole from the Core which is still using ECMP.

If I would use a layer three design between the Distribution and Access layer (which is a little more expensive but results in a much cleaner design), this problem wouldn't exists if I would use contiguous subnets on the access switches.

Conclusion: summarizing only makes sense at the edge of the layer three network going upwards, not side wards in the layer three network. Summarization at the distribution-to-distribution link can break things if the design is layer two so i would advice against doing it.

I attached the Packet Tracer file to the post so you can try for yourself (rename to a .pkt file)

Hello

Would have thought stp inconjunction with the FHRP/timers etc would have flip over thus not losing connectivity especially the core utilising ecmp paths

Interesting read - cheers for sharing -

res

Paul


Please rate and mark as an accepted solution if you have found any of the information provided useful.
This then could assist others on these forums to find a valuable answer and broadens the community’s global network.

Kind Regards
Paul
Getting Started

Find answers to your questions by entering keywords or phrases in the Search bar above. New here? Use these resources to familiarize yourself with the community:

Recognize Your Peers