On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 2:40 PM, Bulger, Tim <tim_bul...@polk.com> wrote:
> If you use stackable switches, you can stack across cabinets (up to 3 with > 1 meter Cisco 3750 Stackwise), and uplink on the ends. It's a pretty solid > layout if you plan your port needs properly based on NIC density and cabinet > size, plus you can cable cleanly to an adjacent cabinet's switch if > necessary. > > Slightly off-topic.. Consider offloading 100Mb connections like PDUs, > DRAC/iLO, etc. to lower cost switches to get the most out of your premium > ports. > Agreed. We use Netgear gigabit unmanaged switches for what Tim suggests to save the higher-cost-per-port switchports for server gear. -brandon > -Tim > > -----Original Message----- > From: Seth Mattinen [mailto:se...@rollernet.us] > Sent: Thursday, November 12, 2009 3:20 PM > To: 'nanog@nanog.org' > Subject: Re: Layer 2 vs. Layer 3 to TOR > > Steve Feldman wrote: > > > > On Nov 12, 2009, at 2:48 PM, Raj Singh wrote: > > > >> Guys, > >> > >> I am wondering how many of you are doing layer 3 to top of rack > >> switches and what the pros and cons are. Also, if you are doing layer > >> 3 to top of rack do you guys have any links to published white papers > >> on it? > > > > Dani Roisman gave an excellent talk on this subject at NANOG 46 in > > Philadelpha: > > > > > > > http://www.nanog.org/meetings/nanog46/abstracts.php?pt=MTQwOCZuYW5vZzQ2&nm=nanog46 > > > > > I'd always wondered how you make a subnet available across racks with L3 > rack switching. It seems that you don't. > > ~Seth > > -- Brandon Galbraith Mobile: 630.400.6992 FNAL: 630.840.2141
