On Tuesday, May 31, 2011 06:50:39 PM Gert Doering wrote: > So a "text book" scenario would have two "core/uplink" > routers here, fully meshed with two "customer access" > boxes (so there's no single switch in between that could > break),...
Well, in our large PoP's, we aggregate core and edge routers into core switches. If you're going to do this, you obviously need two switches for redundancy. We do this because in our large PoP's, it's easy to end up with several edge routers. It would be uneconomical to aggregate all those edge routers into the core. But you're right - if you don't have two switches, save yourself the hassle and connect to the core directly. If you can have two switches and need port density that the core router can't provide cheaply, go that route too. > Now, reality doesn't always work like this for smaller > shops - if the customer connects with a bigger pipe than > what we have to the access routers (like "2 Gbit ether > channel uplink"), they get connected to the "core" box - > because it's sometimes not very economic to roll out > 10Gig everywhere, just for a single 2G customer... This is when I'd upgrade the edge router to something like an MX or ASR9000, and connect the customer to Gig-E or 10- Gig-E ports there. But this is if the customer is connecting within a PoP where an edge router has gotten full and needs to be upgraded anyway. Not always an option, financially. If the customer is connecting to a Metro-E ring, and they need more bandwidth, one could run them to the PE Aggregation routers that serve the Metro-E Access rings. That's what we do, mostly if customers want anything larger than 4Gbps. Cheers, Mark.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
