Re: campus LAN design w/DHCP server [7:59646]
Priscilla Oppenheimer wrote: It's a fast Ethernet trunk, actually. I forgot to mention that. He does have some internal servers. Do you think in and out of a Fast Ethernet trunk will be less of a problem? The 2600 might be. He had a broadcast meltdown last week. Perhaps that's why he's concerned. He was using ghosting software. Symantec Ghost will kill a 2600, 4500, and RSP1 by itself if it is multicasting (which it should be, not broadcasting) and you are doing multicast routing (pim-sparse or pim-dense) and sometimes even when you disable MR. I know this from the school of hard knocks - you will have CPU starvation with a 100Mbps-capable LAN (maybe not at 10Mb, but then you would saturate the net). A 7200/NPE-300 can handle it nicely. DHCP isn't much of a problem, but when you enable the ip helper-address be sure to selectively disable (no ip forward-protocol) everything else you don't need (DNS, TFTP, NetBIOS, etc). Jeff Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=59678t=59646 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: campus LAN design w/DHCP server [7:59646]
If everyone just goes to the internet, it'll work. But if you've got one or more servers internally, I'd be real afraid of trunking on a 10 mb interface. You'll reduce your broadcasts, but I think performance will suffer horribly crossing the router. Since you've run out of addresses on a /24, I assume you've got a couple hundred devices. Personally I'd just move the mask back one or 2 bits, making it a /22 or /23, and using the additional 1.0 or 1,2, and 3.0 subnets. There's things you can do to almost all OSs to reduce broadcasts. How many broadcasts are you seeing per second? If it's no more than 20 on average, I wouldn't even worry about it. Chuck Church CCIE #8776, MCNE, MCSE The customer has been using 192.168.168.0/24 in one small flat LAN. He has run out of these addresses and is being hit by performance issues related to broadcasts. He wants to implement subnets and VLANs: VLAN 100 192.168.168.0/24 VLAN 200 192.168.169.0/24 New design: Internet | s0 2600 router e1 --- public servers e0 | dot1q trunk switch VLAN 200 VLAN 100 There is just one DHCP server. It will be in VLAN 100, address 192.168.168.10. The DHCP server will have 2 scopes for the 2 subnets. We're going to do inter-VLAN routing on the 2600 router. Will this config work as far as DHCP is concerned? interface ethernet 0 no ip address interface ethernet 0.1 encapsulation dot1q 100 ip address 192.168.168.1 255.255.255.0 interface ethernet 0.2 encapsulation dot1q 200 ip address 192.168.169.1 255.255.255.0 ip helper-address 192.168.168.10 Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=59646t=59646 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: campus LAN design w/DHCP server [7:59646]
It's a fast Ethernet trunk, actually. I forgot to mention that. He does have some internal servers. Do you think in and out of a Fast Ethernet trunk will be less of a problem? You know my first reaction was also just move the subnet mask over. But he didn't seem to want to do that. He had a broadcast meltdown last week. Perhaps that's why he's concerned. He was using ghosting software. Thanks for the input! Priscilla Chuck Church wrote: If everyone just goes to the internet, it'll work. But if you've got one or more servers internally, I'd be real afraid of trunking on a 10 mb interface. You'll reduce your broadcasts, but I think performance will suffer horribly crossing the router. Since you've run out of addresses on a /24, I assume you've got a couple hundred devices. Personally I'd just move the mask back one or 2 bits, making it a /22 or /23, and using the additional 1.0 or 1,2, and 3.0 subnets. There's things you can do to almost all OSs to reduce broadcasts. How many broadcasts are you seeing per second? If it's no more than 20 on average, I wouldn't even worry about it. Chuck Church CCIE #8776, MCNE, MCSE The customer has been using 192.168.168.0/24 in one small flat LAN. He has run out of these addresses and is being hit by performance issues related to broadcasts. He wants to implement subnets and VLANs: VLAN 100 192.168.168.0/24 VLAN 200 192.168.169.0/24 New design: Internet | s0 2600 router e1 --- public servers e0 | dot1q trunk switch VLAN 200 VLAN 100 There is just one DHCP server. It will be in VLAN 100, address 192.168.168.10. The DHCP server will have 2 scopes for the 2 subnets. We're going to do inter-VLAN routing on the 2600 router. Will this config work as far as DHCP is concerned? interface ethernet 0 no ip address interface ethernet 0.1 encapsulation dot1q 100 ip address 192.168.168.1 255.255.255.0 interface ethernet 0.2 encapsulation dot1q 200 ip address 192.168.169.1 255.255.255.0 ip helper-address 192.168.168.10 Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=59648t=59646 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
