On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 04:34:11PM +0200, Eugeniu Patrascu wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 4:04 PM, Kinkie wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 9:40 PM, Bulger, Tim wrote:
> >> If you use stackable switches, you can stack across cabinets (up to 3 with
> >> 1 meter Cisco 3750 Stackwise), and uplin
On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 4:04 PM, Kinkie wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 9:40 PM, Bulger, Tim 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
On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 9:40 PM, Bulger, Tim 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, p
Tore Anderson writes:
> * Jonathan Lassoff
>> Are there any applications that absolutely *have* to sit on the same
>> LAN/broadcast domain and can't be configured to use unicast or multicast
>> IP?
> FCoE comes to mind.
Doesn't FCoE need even more than that, i.e. "lossless" Ethernet with
end-to-e
On Fri, 2009-11-13 at 09:44 +0100, Tore Anderson wrote:
> * Jonathan Lassoff
>
> > Are there any applications that absolutely *have* to sit on the same
> > LAN/broadcast domain and can't be configured to use unicast or multicast
> > IP?
>
> FCoE comes to mind.
>
and in a similar vein, ATAoE
Disagree, the EX is a very capable L3 router for LANs.
On Nov 13, 2009, at 1:17 PM, Cord MacLeod wrote:
> On Nov 13, 2009, at 4:14 AM, Matthew Walster wrote:
>
>> 2009/11/12 David Coulson
>>
>>> You could route /32s within your L3 environment, or maybe even leverage
>>> something like VPLS -
On Nov 13, 2009, at 4:14 AM, Matthew Walster wrote:
2009/11/12 David Coulson
You could route /32s within your L3 environment, or maybe even
leverage
something like VPLS - Not sure of any TOR-level switches that MPLS
pseudowire a port into a VPLS cloud though.
Just to let you know - the J
c:
nanog list
Date:
11/13/2009 08:34 AM
Subject:
Re: Layer 2 vs. Layer 3 to TOR
i have seen no mention of arista as a tos switch/router, yet folk tell
me it is one of the hottest on the block today. is there anyone who is
actuallly using it who would care to report?
randy
I've been using Arista's 7124S in a ToR deployment for a new build out
for a high frequency trading client I've been engaged with. For the
aggregation layer I went with Cisco 4900m's and have had much success
with this deployment especially with the Arista's.
Sent from my iPhone 3GS.
On No
Good point about Arista - Doug Gourlay, of [ex-]Cisco fame, is probably the
person to ask all possible questions about those solutions.
Cisco UCS is missing, also - looking at the Nexus deployment as ToR solution
(2K + 5K, even 1KV, considering the needs for virtualization, also) with all
benefits
i have seen no mention of arista as a tos switch/router, yet folk tell
me it is one of the hottest on the block today. is there anyone who is
actuallly using it who would care to report?
randy
2009/11/12 David Coulson
> You could route /32s within your L3 environment, or maybe even leverage
> something like VPLS - Not sure of any TOR-level switches that MPLS
> pseudowire a port into a VPLS cloud though.
>
Just to let you know - the Juniper EX4200 series only support a single label
sta
* Jonathan Lassoff
> Are there any applications that absolutely *have* to sit on the same
> LAN/broadcast domain and can't be configured to use unicast or multicast
> IP?
FCoE comes to mind.
--
Tore Anderson
Redpill Linpro AS - http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
Tel: +47 21 54 41 27
I would suggest doing a VC with the TOR switches. That way you can
have "one" switch for a lot of racks (I believe 10 would be the upper
limit if using Juniper). If you have a VC you could do L3 and L2
where needed on every rack that the VC covers.
// Olof
2009/11/13 Łukasz Bromirski :
> On 2009
On 2009-11-12 22:37, David Coulson wrote:
The MX-series are pretty nice. That should be able to do VPLS PE,
however I've never tried it - MX240 did it pretty well last time I
tried. I've no clue how the cost of that switch compares to a cisco 4900
or something (not that a 4900 is anything specia
: Layer 2 vs. Layer 3 to TOR
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!
I believe the issue will become a moot point in the next 12 months when
vendors begin to ship switches with TRILL.
TRILL is basically a layer 2 routing protocol that will replace spanning
tree. It will allow you to connect several uplinks, utilize all the
bandwidth of the uplinks, prevent loops,
Hi,
Am 12.11.2009 22:29 Uhr schrieb Jonathan Lassoff:
> Are there any applications that absolutely *have* to sit on the same
> LAN/broadcast domain and can't be configured to use unicast or multicast
> IP?
yes. There are at least some implementations of iSCSI and the accompanying
management servi
Jonathan Lassoff wrote:
I was recently looking into this (top-of-rack VPLS PE box). Doesn't seem
to be any obvious options, though the new Juniper MX80 sounds like it
can do this. It's 2 RU, and looks like it can take a DPC card or comes
in a fixed 48-port GigE variety.
The MX-series are pret
Excerpts from David Coulson's message of Thu Nov 12 13:07:35 -0800 2009:
> You could route /32s within your L3 environment, or maybe even leverage
> something like VPLS - Not sure of any TOR-level switches that MPLS
> pseudowire a port into a VPLS cloud though.
I was recently looking into this (
Raj Singh wrote:
We are actually looking at going Layer 3 all the way to the top of rack and make each rack its own /24. This provides us flexibility when doing maintenance (spanning-tree). Also, troubleshooting during outages is much easier by using common tools like ping and trace routes.
I'm c
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
Seth Mattinen wrote:
I'd always wondered how you make a subnet available across racks with L3
rack switching. It seems that you don't.
You could route /32s within your L3 environment, or maybe even leverage
something like VPLS - Not sure of any TOR-level switches that MPLS
pseudowire a port int
On 12/11/2009 20:40, Bulger, Tim wrote:
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.
Not just that, you can also use lower cost switches to move your management
fully out-of-band with resp
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.o
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 a
On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 12:19:36PM -0800, Seth Mattinen wrote:
>
> I'd always wondered how you make a subnet available across racks with L3
> rack switching. It seems that you don't.
>
> ~Seth
It's possible, with prior planning. You can have the uplinks be layer 2
trunks, with a layer 3 SVI in
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 paper
...@demandmedia.com
-Original Message-
From: Paul Stewart [mailto:pstew...@nexicomgroup.net]
Sent: Thursday, November 12, 2009 11:53 AM
To: Raj Singh; nanog@nanog.org
Subject: RE: Layer 2 vs. Layer 3 to TOR
We are heading towards that type of deployment beginning next year with
Juniper
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 e
We are heading towards that type of deployment beginning next year with
Juniper EX4200 switches in a redundant configuration. This will be pure
Layer2 in nature on the switches and they will "uplink" to Juniper
M10i's for layer3... the power savings, space savings etc over
traditional Cisco 6500 c
31 matches
Mail list logo
