[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Layer 2 vs. Layer 3 to TOR
- Subject: Layer 2 vs. Layer 3 to TOR
- From: mvh at hosteurope.de (Malte von dem Hagen)
- Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2009 22:08:57 +0100
- In-reply-to: <6CDE22DE80A63A4DACF4FE2C916519A53F4E63E3DD@BLV11EXVS01.corp.dm.local>
- References: <6CDE22DE80A63A4DACF4FE2C916519A53F4E63E3DB@BLV11EXVS01.corp.dm.local> <[email protected]> <6CDE22DE80A63A4DACF4FE2C916519A53F4E63E3DD@BLV11EXVS01.corp.dm.local>
Hej,
Am 12.11.2009 21:04 Uhr schrieb Raj Singh:
> We are actually looking at going Layer 3 all the way to the top of rack and
> make each rack its own /24.
what a waste of IPs and unnecessary loss of flexibility!
> This provides us flexibility when doing maintenance (spanning-tree).
If you use a simple setup for aggregation, you do not need xSTP. Even including
redundancy, RTG (big C: flex-link) will be sufficient. Spanning the L2 over more
than one rack is dirty when you do L3 on the TORs, because you need to build a
Virtual Chassis or VPLS tunnels (not sure if EX4200 does that as of today).
> Also, troubleshooting during outages is much easier by using
> common tools like ping and trace routes.
Oh, c'mon. Yes, Layer 2 is a wild jungle compared to clean routing, but tracing
isn't that magic there. You have LLDP, mac-address-tables, arp-tables...
> I want to make sure this is something other people are doing out there and
> want to know if anyone ran into any issues with this setup.