Re: Switch Design Question [7:39888]
At 9:26 AM -0500 3/29/02, KM Reynolds wrote: >Hi All, > >I am looking at this configuration: > >[PC]---[Switch1]---Fiber---[Switch2]---[Switch3]---[WirelessBridge]---distance2miles---[WirelessBridge]---[4Switch10Mb]---[Router]---[ISPInternet] > >The switches are all consist of 10Mb ports. The question. Whould it not be >a better design to take out switch2 and switch3 and replace it with one >switch with more ports. This would elimate one switch to traverse when the >clients are accessing the Internet. > >Any thoughts on this or if you see other things that may help with the >design. > >TIA >KM Possibly. But the largest source of delay is probably your Internet link, unless it's 10 Mbps or faster. Some of the questions to answer about replacing the switches: Do the separate switches pass traffic (e.g., printer) that stays in their workgroup? Are there any distance restrictions between switch 2 and 3? Do separate switches help you distinguish between business units? Is the required number of ports due to increase, so you need to add capacity? Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=39898&t=39888 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Switch Design Question [7:39888]
In a 10Mb environ, what the heck! I would speculate that double-up won't make an ROI out of consolidation. However, this brings up a nasty little problem I'm looking at, and I might phrase this another way. "How many cascaded switching devices can exist in a broadcast domain without creating unacceptable latency in the network?" I see some scary practices with repeated arrays of inexpensive switches, "RAIS", if you will. Each time a new workstation room is set up, the answer is to cascade more and more unmanaged hub/switches (sorry Cisco, it's a money thing) on the rack or down the copper to the room, or both. While the sweetness of low cost is succulent, surely there is a theoretical limit of how many members of a "RAIS array" one can cram into a building. So, boy and girl wonders, I've heard the magic number of "7". Anyone want to "do the math"? Very best and happy Friday, G. VP OGC > Subject: Switch Design Question [7:39888] > I am looking at this configuration: > > [PC]---[Switch1]---Fiber---[Switch2]---[Switch3]---[WirelessBr > idge]---distance2miles---[WirelessBridge]---[4Switch10Mb]---[R > outer]---[ISPInternet] > > The switches are all consist of 10Mb ports. The question. > Whould it not be > a better design to take out switch2 and switch3 and replace > it with one > switch with more ports. This would elimate one switch to > traverse when the > clients are accessing the Internet. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=39901&t=39888 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Switch Design Question [7:39888]
If the reason for the second switch is you ran out of ports, replacing it with a larger switch is fine if money in no object or you have another use for these two switches. Otherwise I wouldn't worry, the latency, though measurable is nothing to worry about compared to your Internet connection. Dave KM Reynolds wrote: > > Hi All, > > I am looking at this configuration: > > [PC]---[Switch1]---Fiber---[Switch2]---[Switch3]---[WirelessBridge]---distance2miles---[WirelessBridge]---[4Switch10Mb]---[Router]---[ISPInternet] > > The switches are all consist of 10Mb ports. The question. Whould it not be > a better design to take out switch2 and switch3 and replace it with one > switch with more ports. This would elimate one switch to traverse when the > clients are accessing the Internet. > > Any thoughts on this or if you see other things that may help with the > design. > > TIA > KM > > _ > MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: > http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx -- David Madland Sr. Network Engineer CCIE# 2016 Qwest Communications Int. Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] 612-664-3367 "Emotion should reflect reason not guide it" Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=39895&t=39888 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Switch Design Question [7:39888]
Do you know if there was a reason for Switch 3 being in the design? That's what I would try to find out Maybe it was necessary because Switch 2 is located in a wiring closet, whereas Switch 3 and the Wireless Bridge are in the main distribution frame. Or maybe Switch 2 only has fiber-optic ports (not likely, but you never know). Or maybe Switch 3 also connects a server farm. Or maybe the network designer wanted to keep things modular, which is a good idea. Maybe the designer added Switch 3 to try to contain problems related to the wireless bridge being flaky. Or maybe it's there just because that's the equipment that was available and there's no budget for a bigger switch. These days switches are so fast that I don't think you need to be too concerned about the switch adding any noticeable delay. But if there's no good reason for it being there, then you're right to question it. Simplifying the design would have some advantages: fewer devices to fail, a network design that is easier to understand and troubleshoot, etc. If you do buy another switch, you could really go wild and design a topology with more redundancy and fail-over in it! Use all the switches maybe. Priscilla At 09:26 AM 3/29/02, KM Reynolds wrote: >Hi All, > >I am looking at this configuration: > >[PC]---[Switch1]---Fiber---[Switch2]---[Switch3]---[WirelessBridge]---distance2miles---[WirelessBridge]---[4Switch10Mb]---[Router]---[ISPInternet] > >The switches are all consist of 10Mb ports. The question. Whould it not be >a better design to take out switch2 and switch3 and replace it with one >switch with more ports. This would elimate one switch to traverse when the >clients are accessing the Internet. > >Any thoughts on this or if you see other things that may help with the >design. > >TIA >KM > > > >_ >MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: >http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx Priscilla Oppenheimer http://www.priscilla.com Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=39902&t=39888 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Switch Design Question [7:39888]
Isn't the issue of the maximum number of cascaded switches mostly a questions of how long it would take to reconfigure the spanning tree when problems occur? A max of 7 is recommended based on the timing of Configuration BPDUs, etc. I don't think it's really an issue of how much latency is involved in forwarding frames. The delay can be as small as 10 microseconds for 64-byte Ethernet frames crossing high-end switches. In this particular design, reconvergence of the spanning tree isn't really an issue. His network is just one linear branch of a tree no matter how you look at it! ;-) Of course, he could fix that Priscilla At 11:51 AM 3/29/02, Hartnell, George wrote: >In a 10Mb environ, what the heck! I would speculate that double-up won't >make an ROI out of consolidation. > >However, this brings up a nasty little problem I'm looking at, and I might >phrase this another way. "How many cascaded switching devices can exist in a >broadcast domain without creating unacceptable latency in the network?" > >I see some scary practices with repeated arrays of inexpensive switches, >"RAIS", if you will. Each time a new workstation room is set up, the answer >is to cascade more and more unmanaged hub/switches (sorry Cisco, it's a >money thing) on the rack or down the copper to the room, or both. While the >sweetness of low cost is succulent, surely there is a theoretical limit of >how many members of a "RAIS array" one can cram into a building. > >So, boy and girl wonders, I've heard the magic number of "7". Anyone want >to "do the math"? > >Very best and happy Friday, G. >VP OGC > > > > > Subject: Switch Design Question [7:39888] > > I am looking at this configuration: > > > > [PC]---[Switch1]---Fiber---[Switch2]---[Switch3]---[WirelessBr > > idge]---distance2miles---[WirelessBridge]---[4Switch10Mb]---[R > > outer]---[ISPInternet] > > > > The switches are all consist of 10Mb ports. The question. > > Whould it not be > > a better design to take out switch2 and switch3 and replace > > it with one > > switch with more ports. This would elimate one switch to > > traverse when the > > clients are accessing the Internet. Priscilla Oppenheimer http://www.priscilla.com Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=39904&t=39888 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Switch Design Question [7:39888]
In the topology given, the real bottleneck is the wireless bridge ( assuming 11 meg shared ), and of course the ISP link speed. the switch to switch latency is not the killer here. other factors are numbers of users, especially the numbers crossing the wireless link. These suckers still tend to be half duplex. you running full duplex into your other switches? ""KM Reynolds"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > Hi All, > > I am looking at this configuration: > > [PC]---[Switch1]---Fiber---[Switch2]---[Switch3]---[WirelessBridge]---distan ce2miles---[WirelessBridge]---[4Switch10Mb]---[Router]---[ISPInternet] > > The switches are all consist of 10Mb ports. The question. Whould it not be > a better design to take out switch2 and switch3 and replace it with one > switch with more ports. This would elimate one switch to traverse when the > clients are accessing the Internet. > > Any thoughts on this or if you see other things that may help with the > design. > > TIA > KM > > > > _ > MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: > http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=39905&t=39888 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Switch Design Question [7:39888]
I was gonna say, perhaps the Switch2 has a Fiber connection, and thus the Switch3 was put in place because of lacking port density. Is it going to be cost effective to by a replacement larger switch with a Fiber port on it -just- so you can consolidate space/hops?? Of course, this is assuming that the distance b/t SW1 and SW2 is more than 100 meters, perhaps between buildings. If this is not the case, and the Fiber is simply providing a "Fast" Switch-to-Switch uplink and they are within the same closet... I would think that, providing "Money is not an issue", than why not consolidate all switches into one big switch. I agree though... if it's just a thang about speed to the 'Net then the Switches are the least of your worries... unless they are old, flaky, begging to be decommissioned so they can RIP :) I guess the big question is, where is each switch Geographically located, and of course... "What Problem Are You Trying To Solve?!?!" :-) Happy Easter folks! (for those who observe it) Mark -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Howard C. Berkowitz Sent: Friday, March 29, 2002 10:22 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Switch Design Question [7:39888] At 9:26 AM -0500 3/29/02, KM Reynolds wrote: >Hi All, > >I am looking at this configuration: > >[PC]---[Switch1]---Fiber---[Switch2]---[Switch3]---[WirelessBridge]---dista nce2miles---[WirelessBridge]---[4Switch10Mb]---[Router]---[ISPInternet] > >The switches are all consist of 10Mb ports. The question. Whould it not be >a better design to take out switch2 and switch3 and replace it with one >switch with more ports. This would elimate one switch to traverse when the >clients are accessing the Internet. > >Any thoughts on this or if you see other things that may help with the >design. > >TIA >KM Possibly. But the largest source of delay is probably your Internet link, unless it's 10 Mbps or faster. Some of the questions to answer about replacing the switches: Do the separate switches pass traffic (e.g., printer) that stays in their workgroup? Are there any distance restrictions between switch 2 and 3? Do separate switches help you distinguish between business units? Is the required number of ports due to increase, so you need to add capacity? Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=39915&t=39888 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Switch Design Question [7:39888]
The reason for switch3 is, switch2 ran out of ports when the campus site(switch1) was added. All the equipment is in one room. Switch1 to switch2 is connected via fiber because switch1 is at a remote campus building. The Internet connection is to be added. The reason for having the Internet connection at the location of switch4 is that is the only site that ADSL is available. I was concerned about the traffic that was destined to the Internet gateway from the source switch1. I thought there maybe a bottleneck at the point where data is passed from switch2 to switch3. It seems with this design there should not be any latency issues. If I could ask you another question,(possible future addition) what if switch1 was located on another subnet. The subnet is connected via ISDN(128K). Does anyone see any problems with traffic going across an ISDN link to switch to wireless link to switch to Internet. Thanks KM >From: "Priscilla Oppenheimer" >Reply-To: "Priscilla Oppenheimer" >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Re: Switch Design Question [7:39888] >Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 13:12:32 -0500 > >Do you know if there was a reason for Switch 3 being in the design? That's >what I would try to find out > >Maybe it was necessary because Switch 2 is located in a wiring closet, >whereas Switch 3 and the Wireless Bridge are in the main distribution >frame. Or maybe Switch 2 only has fiber-optic ports (not likely, but you >never know). Or maybe Switch 3 also connects a server farm. Or maybe the >network designer wanted to keep things modular, which is a good idea. Maybe >the designer added Switch 3 to try to contain problems related to the >wireless bridge being flaky. Or maybe it's there just because that's the >equipment that was available and there's no budget for a bigger switch. > >These days switches are so fast that I don't think you need to be too >concerned about the switch adding any noticeable delay. > >But if there's no good reason for it being there, then you're right to >question it. Simplifying the design would have some advantages: fewer >devices to fail, a network design that is easier to understand and >troubleshoot, etc. > >If you do buy another switch, you could really go wild and design a >topology with more redundancy and fail-over in it! Use all the switches >maybe. > >Priscilla > >At 09:26 AM 3/29/02, KM Reynolds wrote: > >Hi All, > > > >I am looking at this configuration: > > > >[PC]---[Switch1]---Fiber---[Switch2]---[Switch3]---[WirelessBridge]---distance2miles---[WirelessBridge]---[4Switch10Mb]---[Router]---[ISPInternet] > > > >The switches are all consist of 10Mb ports. The question. Whould it not >be > >a better design to take out switch2 and switch3 and replace it with one > >switch with more ports. This would elimate one switch to traverse when >the > >clients are accessing the Internet. > > > >Any thoughts on this or if you see other things that may help with the > >design. > > > >TIA > >KM > > > > > > > >_ > >MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: > >http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx > > >Priscilla Oppenheimer >http://www.priscilla.com _ MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=39943&t=39888 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Switch Design Question [7:39888]
Mark, I should have mentioned, switch1 is at a campus site (100meters), and switch4 is at a remote site. And exactly switch3 was added because they ran out of ports. At the moment there is no problems, however the Internet connection is to be added soon. The reason for putting it at the location of switch4, that is the only location DSL is available. Hope you had a Great Easter KM >From: "Mark Odette II" >Reply-To: "Mark Odette II" >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: RE: Switch Design Question [7:39888] >Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 15:59:18 -0500 > >I was gonna say, perhaps the Switch2 has a Fiber connection, and thus the >Switch3 was put in place because of lacking port density. Is it going to >be >cost effective to by a replacement larger switch with a Fiber port on >it -just- so you can consolidate space/hops?? Of course, this is assuming >that the distance b/t SW1 and SW2 is more than 100 meters, perhaps between >buildings. If this is not the case, and the Fiber is simply providing a >"Fast" Switch-to-Switch uplink and they are within the same closet... I >would think that, providing "Money is not an issue", than why not >consolidate all switches into one big switch. > >I agree though... if it's just a thang about speed to the 'Net then the >Switches are the least of your worries... unless they are old, flaky, >begging to be decommissioned so they can RIP :) > >I guess the big question is, where is each switch Geographically located, >and of course... "What Problem Are You Trying To Solve?!?!" :-) > >Happy Easter folks! (for those who observe it) > >Mark > >-Original Message- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of >Howard C. Berkowitz >Sent: Friday, March 29, 2002 10:22 AM >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Re: Switch Design Question [7:39888] > > >At 9:26 AM -0500 3/29/02, KM Reynolds wrote: > >Hi All, > > > >I am looking at this configuration: > > > >[PC]---[Switch1]---Fiber---[Switch2]---[Switch3]---[WirelessBridge]---dista >nce2miles---[WirelessBridge]---[4Switch10Mb]---[Router]---[ISPInternet] > > > >The switches are all consist of 10Mb ports. The question. Whould it not >be > >a better design to take out switch2 and switch3 and replace it with one > >switch with more ports. This would elimate one switch to traverse when >the > >clients are accessing the Internet. > > > >Any thoughts on this or if you see other things that may help with the > >design. > > > >TIA > >KM > >Possibly. But the largest source of delay is probably your Internet >link, unless it's 10 Mbps or faster. > >Some of the questions to answer about replacing the switches: > Do the separate switches pass traffic (e.g., printer) that stays in > their workgroup? > > Are there any distance restrictions between switch 2 and 3? > > Do separate switches help you distinguish between business units? > > Is the required number of ports due to increase, so you need to > add capacity? _ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=39944&t=39888 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Switch Design Question [7:39888]
let's start with the basic question - how many users? what is the duplex of the switch links? I continue to believe that your bottlenecks are: 1) the wireless bridge and 2) your internet setup. assuming your interswitch links are 10 mbs full duplex, bypassing this with a 128 kps ( duplex notwithstanding ) does not gain you anything, does it? you might want to do the numbers, just for kicks. divide the bandwidth per link by number of users under each scenario. this will help you see concretely what is going on. HTH Chuck ""KM Reynolds"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > The reason for switch3 is, switch2 ran out of ports when the campus > site(switch1) was added. All the equipment is in one room. Switch1 to > switch2 is connected via fiber because switch1 is at a remote campus > building. > > The Internet connection is to be added. The reason for having the Internet > connection at the location of switch4 is that is the only site that ADSL is > available. > > I was concerned about the traffic that was destined to the Internet gateway > from the source switch1. I thought there maybe a bottleneck at the point > where data is passed from switch2 to switch3. It seems with this design > there should not be any latency issues. > > If I could ask you another question,(possible future addition) what if > switch1 was located on another subnet. The subnet is connected via > ISDN(128K). Does anyone see any problems with traffic going across an ISDN > link to switch to wireless link to switch to Internet. > > Thanks > KM > > >From: "Priscilla Oppenheimer" > >Reply-To: "Priscilla Oppenheimer" > >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Subject: Re: Switch Design Question [7:39888] > >Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 13:12:32 -0500 > > > >Do you know if there was a reason for Switch 3 being in the design? That's > >what I would try to find out > > > >Maybe it was necessary because Switch 2 is located in a wiring closet, > >whereas Switch 3 and the Wireless Bridge are in the main distribution > >frame. Or maybe Switch 2 only has fiber-optic ports (not likely, but you > >never know). Or maybe Switch 3 also connects a server farm. Or maybe the > >network designer wanted to keep things modular, which is a good idea. Maybe > >the designer added Switch 3 to try to contain problems related to the > >wireless bridge being flaky. Or maybe it's there just because that's the > >equipment that was available and there's no budget for a bigger switch. > > > >These days switches are so fast that I don't think you need to be too > >concerned about the switch adding any noticeable delay. > > > >But if there's no good reason for it being there, then you're right to > >question it. Simplifying the design would have some advantages: fewer > >devices to fail, a network design that is easier to understand and > >troubleshoot, etc. > > > >If you do buy another switch, you could really go wild and design a > >topology with more redundancy and fail-over in it! Use all the switches > >maybe. > > > >Priscilla > > > >At 09:26 AM 3/29/02, KM Reynolds wrote: > > >Hi All, > > > > > >I am looking at this configuration: > > > > > > >[PC]---[Switch1]---Fiber---[Switch2]---[Switch3]---[WirelessBridge]---dista nce2miles---[WirelessBridge]---[4Switch10Mb]---[Router]---[ISPInternet] > > > > > >The switches are all consist of 10Mb ports. The question. Whould it not > >be > > >a better design to take out switch2 and switch3 and replace it with one > > >switch with more ports. This would elimate one switch to traverse when > >the > > >clients are accessing the Internet. > > > > > >Any thoughts on this or if you see other things that may help with the > > >design. > > > > > >TIA > > >KM > > > > > > > > > > > >_ > > >MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: > > >http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx > > > > > >Priscilla Oppenheimer > >http://www.priscilla.com > _ > MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: > http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=39945&t=39888 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Switch Design Question [7:39888]
Although most of the latency comes from your wireless link and the ISP connection, it still doesn't mean you shouldn't optimize the setup a bit. You mentioned in a later email that the reason for switch2 and 3 is that they needed more ports. That's fine, and there's nothing wrong with that type of configuration. The only real problem here is that in a simple network (without much redundancy that is...) all of your critical devices should be plugged into the same switch so they can communicate over the fast backplane of the switch. For that reason, I would pick one of the two switches, and call it the "core" switch. Take switch2, since it obviously has the required fiber ports already. So on Switch2, plug in all your servers, key users, and links to other switches & hubs (including the wireless bridge). That way all of the high-traffic devices are sharing the same physical switch. [PC]---[Switch1]---Fiber---[Switch2]---[WirelessBridge]---distance2miles---[ WirelessBridge]---[4Switch10Mb]---[Router]---[ISPInternet] | [Switch3] Although that won't affect the speed of your Internet access (the ISP is still the bottleneck), it reduces the number of points of failure (switch3 can fail without affecting any users except the ones plugged into switch3), and might provide some speed increases for the network as a whole. -Travis ""KM Reynolds"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > Hi All, > > I am looking at this configuration: > > [PC]---[Switch1]---Fiber---[Switch2]---[Switch3]---[WirelessBridge]---distan ce2miles---[WirelessBridge]---[4Switch10Mb]---[Router]---[ISPInternet] > > The switches are all consist of 10Mb ports. The question. Whould it not be > a better design to take out switch2 and switch3 and replace it with one > switch with more ports. This would elimate one switch to traverse when the > clients are accessing the Internet. > > Any thoughts on this or if you see other things that may help with the > design. > > TIA > KM > > > > _ > MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: > http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=39970&t=39888 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Switch Design Question [7:39888]
Although most of the latency comes from your wireless link and the ISP connection, it still doesn't mean you shouldn't optimize the setup a bit. You mentioned in a later email that the reason for switch2 and 3 is that they needed more ports. That's fine, and there's nothing wrong with that type of configuration. The only real problem here is that in a simple network (without much redundancy that is...) all of your critical devices should be plugged into the same switch so they can communicate over the fast backplane of the switch. For that reason, I would pick one of the two switches, and call it the "core" switch. Take switch2, since it obviously has the required fiber ports already. So on Switch2, plug in all your servers, key users, and links to other switches & hubs (including the wireless bridge). That way all of the high-traffic devices are sharing the same physical switch. [PC]---[Switch1]---Fiber---[Switch2]---[WirelessBridge]---distance2miles---[ WirelessBridge]---[4Switch10Mb]---[Router]---[ISPInternet] | [Switch3] Although that won't affect the speed of your Internet access (the ISP is still the bottleneck), it reduces the number of points of failure (switch3 can fail without affecting any users except the ones plugged into switch3), and might provide some speed increases for the network as a whole. -Travis ""KM Reynolds"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > Hi All, > > I am looking at this configuration: > > [PC]---[Switch1]---Fiber---[Switch2]---[Switch3]---[WirelessBridge]---distan ce2miles---[WirelessBridge]---[4Switch10Mb]---[Router]---[ISPInternet] > > The switches are all consist of 10Mb ports. The question. Whould it not be > a better design to take out switch2 and switch3 and replace it with one > switch with more ports. This would elimate one switch to traverse when the > clients are accessing the Internet. > > Any thoughts on this or if you see other things that may help with the > design. > > TIA > KM > > > > _ > MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: > http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=39971&t=39888 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
