Why could you not still bill them for separate switches even if they are stackwise? If you have a cluster of servers that answer to 1 ip address would you still not bill for each server? I know it's not totally equivalent but it's a similar situation.
Matthew Loraditch 1965 Greenspring Drive Timonium, MD 21093 [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> (p) (410) 252-8830 (F) (443) 541-1593 Visit us at www.heliontechnologies.com<http://www.heliontechnologies.com/> Support Issue? Email [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> for fast assistance! From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Bill Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2010 8:18 AM To: 'Patrice Ngassam'; [email protected] Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Re: [OSL | CCIE_RS] Stack Vs Standalone "Ease of management is not relevant if you bill your customer on device count basis" If you don't try to find the best method to bill your customer you may find they are someone else's customer. ________________________________ From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Patrice Ngassam Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2010 10:30 PM To: [email protected] Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Re: [OSL | CCIE_RS] Stack Vs Standalone Thanks Matt, Ease of management is not relevant if you bill your customer on device count basis. I would like to know if it's better to use stack at the access layer (Gig E uplinks to distribution layer) knowing that communication flows vertically with very little interaction between users. in HA scenarios, with need FHRP if we use standalone devices and also rely on spanning-tree for load-balancing. With stack, no more need for HSRP OR VRRP, lesser risks of L2 loops and son on. What is the most important criteria for selecting 3750 over 3560? Patrice Ngassam Ceritified Cisco CCNP, CCDP, CCIP > Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2010 12:20:54 +1000 > Subject: Re: [OSL | CCIE_RS] Stack Vs Standalone > From: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> > To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> > CC: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>; > [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>; > [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>; > [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>; > [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> > > Are these 3750 or 3750E? > > Either way: > > Performance between each switch is 32Gb or 96Gb. If you use Gig-E to > connect them you only get 1G :) That shiny silver cable does much > more than a Cat6 or a fibre. > One virtual device to manage as opposed to two > > Short version, stacking is much easier to manage and gets better > performance over the stackwise cable > > Cheers, > Matt > > CCIE #22386 > CCSI #31207 > > On 14 April 2010 12:08, Patrice Ngassam > <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > Hi Dear friends of Networking ! > > I am facing a dilemma between stacking switches or use them as standalone > > devices. Is there any real network performance increase when switches are > > stacked together? If I have 2 3750 switches at the access layer, what kind > > of network performance gain I obtain with when they are configured as stack? > > > > Patrice Ngassam > > Ceritified Cisco CCNP, CCDP, CCIP > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > Date: Sun, 28 Mar 2010 17:11:46 -0400 > > From: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> > > To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> > > CC: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>; > > [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>; > > [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>; > > [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>; > > [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>; > > [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> > > Subject: Re: [OSL | CCIE_RS] BGP design question > > > > Not so much a threat as just an oddity. We strive so much to have our > > networks evolve to a self-healing method. We build in redundancy so that WE > > do not NEED to do all the work. Let your network work for you. And here's > > someone who wants to work for the network. ;) > > > > Patrice Ngassam wrote: > > > > You are very funny Scott, I was also chocked when the customer told me that > > manual switchback was his requirement. Why is it strange for you? Is it a > > threat for network design best practices? > > > > Patrice Ngassam > > Ceritified Cisco CCNP, CCDP, CCIP > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > Date: Sun, 28 Mar 2010 16:58:17 -0400 > > From: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> > > To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> > > CC: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>; > > [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>; > > [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>; > > [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>; > > [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>; > > [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> > > Subject: Re: [OSL | CCIE_RS] BGP design question > > > > Which this would most certainly cover his strange requirement of manual > > switchback. > > > > On the other hand, could we run like IOS 10.3 or something? i seem to > > recall that more things were less automagical back then! (smirk) > > > > > > > > Scott > > > > Marko Milivojevic wrote: > > > > Now, expanding on this we need solve additional requirement from the > > original post. How to prevent peer from coming back up. Well, for that > > we could probably use EEM. Let's take a look. > > > > event manager applet DISABLE_PEER > > event routing network 2.2.2.2/32 type remove > > action 10 cli command "enable" > > action 20 cli command "configure terminal" > > action 30 cli command "router bgp 1" > > action 40 cli command "neighbor 2.2.2.2 shutdown" > > action 50 cli command "end" > > ! > > > > Enabling peer on R2. > > > > R1#sh ip bgp sum > > BGP router identifier 1.1.1.1, local AS number 1 > > BGP table version is 1, main routing table version 1 > > > > Neighbor V AS MsgRcvd MsgSent TblVer InQ OutQ > > Up/Down State/PfxRcd > > 2.2.2.2 4 2 6 5 1 0 0 > > 00:00:37 0 > > > > Killing the interface on R2 here. > > > > *Mar 29 01:33:59.679: %TRACKING-5-STATE: 1 ip sla 1 reachability Up->Down > > *Mar 29 01:33:59.683: %BGP-5-ADJCHANGE: neighbor 2.2.2.2 Down Route to peer > > lost > > *Mar 29 01:33:59.747: %SYS-5-CONFIG_I: Configured from console by on > > vty0 (EEM:DISABLE_PEER) > > > > -- > > Marko Milivojevic - CCIE #18427 > > Senior Technical Instructor - IPexpert > > > > YES! We include 400 hours of REAL rack > > time with our Blended Learning Solution! > > > > Mailto: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> > > Telephone: +1.810.326.1444 > > Fax: +1.810.454.0130 > > Web: http://www.ipexpert.com/ > > > > On Sun, Mar 28, 2010 at 17:05, Marko Milivojevic > > <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> > > wrote: > > > > > > On Sun, Mar 28, 2010 at 17:00, Narbik Kocharians > > <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > > > > > Totally understand that, but i did not see any mention of OSPF or ISIS. > > > > > > Enjoy. > > > > R1: > > > > interface Loopback0 > > B ip address 1.1.1.1 255.255.255.255 > > ! > > interface FastEthernet0/0 > > B ip address 12.12.12.1 255.255.255.0 > > ! > > ip sla 1 > > B icmp-echo 12.12.12.2 > > B frequency 5 > > ! > > ip sla schedule 1 start-time now life forever > > ! > > track 1 ip sla 1 reachability > > B default-state down > > ! > > ip route 2.2.2.2 255.255.255.255 12.12.12.2 track 1 > > ! > > route-map Neighbor-Alive > > B match source-protocol static > > ! > > router bgp 1 > > B neighbor 2.2.2.2 remote-as 2 > > B neighbor 2.2.2.2 update-source Loopback0 > > B neighbor 2.2.2.2 ebgp-multihop 2 > > B neighbor 2.2.2.2 fall-over route-map Neighbor-Alive > > ! > > > > R2: > > > > interface GigabitEthernet0/0 > > B ip address 12.12.12.2 255.255.255.0 > > ! > > router bgp 2 > > B neighbor 1.1.1.1 remote-as 1 > > B neighbor 1.1.1.1 ebgp-multihop 2 > > B neighbor 1.1.1.1 update-source Loopback0 > > ! > > > > Notice what happens on R1 as soon as I shut down the port on R2 (there > > is a switch between them). > > > > *Mar 29 00:59:19.679: %TRACKING-5-STATE: 1 ip sla 1 reachability Up->Down > > *Mar 29 00:59:19.683: %BGP-5-ADJCHANGE: neighbor 2.2.2.2 Down Route to peer > > lost > > > > > > -- > > Marko Milivojevic - CCIE #18427 > > Senior Technical Instructor - IPexpert > > > > YES! We include 400 hours of REAL rack > > time with our Blended Learning Solution! > > > > Mailto: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> > > Telephone: +1.810.326.1444 > > Fax: +1.810.454.0130 > > Web: http://www.ipexpert.com/ > > > > > > Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net > > > > _______________________________________________________________________ > > Subscription information may be found at: > > http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > Télécharger en toute sécurité sur Internet ? La solution avec Internet > > Explorer 8 > > > > ________________________________ > > Télécharger en toute sécurité sur Internet ? La solution avec Internet > > Explorer 8 > > _______________________________________________ > > For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab training, please > > visit www.ipexpert.com<http://www.ipexpert.com> > > > > ________________________________ Hotmail débarque sur votre téléphone ! Paramétrez Hotmail sur votre téléphone! Gratuit !<http://www.messengersurvotremobile.com/?d=Hotmail>
_______________________________________________ For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab training, please visit www.ipexpert.com
