[88949] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Transit LAN vs. Individual LANs
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Sat Feb 25 14:34:48 2006
Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2006 11:33:59 -0800
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
To: "Patrick W. Gilmore" <patrick@ianai.net>, nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <91427615-11DC-4D0F-893E-A1FCE425F3E4@ianai.net>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
--==========787B2F0C0D5E78CF619A==========
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
--On February 25, 2006 11:04:12 AM -0500 "Patrick W. Gilmore"
<patrick@ianai.net> wrote:
>
> On Feb 24, 2006, at 9:03 PM, Scott Weeks wrote:
>
>> I have 2 core routers (CR) and 3 access routers (AR)
>> currently connected point-to-point where each AR connects to
>> each CR for a total of 6 ckts. Now someone has decided to
>> connect them with Gig-E. I was wondering about the benefits
>> or disadvantages of keeping the ckts each in their own
>> individual LANs or tying them all into one VLAN for a
>> "Transit LAN" as those folks that decided on going to Gig-E
>> aren't doing any logical network architecting (is that a
>> real word?).
In my experience either solution has tradeoffs and the correct
one depends greatly on your traffic patterns. Having said that,
what I find causes most of the problems in either solution is
when the Layer 3 topology starts to diverge from the Layer 2
topology.
Owen
--
If it wasn't crypto-signed, it probably didn't come from me.
--==========787B2F0C0D5E78CF619A==========
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (Darwin)
iD8DBQFEALEnn5zKWQ/iqj0RAl1bAJ9JNgrr2gZyJtuE9+eBK4wzZg9QSACgkS6+
fmawT3DlJS99mm0cU+J6Qoc=
=BOlp
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--==========787B2F0C0D5E78CF619A==========--
