Re: Question for Spanning tree experts



"Kevin Widner" <kwidner@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1137701011.320786.261570@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Hey Send me a link! I want to see more. Without transit subnets, I'm
> not sure I'm understanding the proposed setup.
>
> >Spanning tree has its place, but frankly, I
> >think it's safe to say that it doesn't belong in the core.
>
> I agree, that is why I thought we were talking about the access layer,
> not the core.
>
> Let me say that we may be in favor of the same thing. I'm specifically
> speaking of the connection from my access layer switches into the
> distribution that IS my server farm. Not how my server farm connects to
> the rest of my network. With several hundred servers all sharing the
> same subnet or vlan, split across 60 access layer switches, I can't see
> the benefit in trying to seperate them via L3. Although, I'm always
> open to seeing new ideas! Is there a link to a drawing or proposed
> architecture for a server farm environment?

more "architecture" than anyone could ask for....
http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/779/largeent/it/ese/srnd.html

the campus design is the best place to start with for this - most of the
data centre docs focus on load balancing, security and similar add ons.
>
--
Regards

stephen_hope@xxxxxxxxxxxx - replace xyz with ntl


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Question for Spanning tree experts
    ... Without transit subnets, I'm ... not sure I'm understanding the proposed setup. ... I agree, that is why I thought we were talking about the access layer, ... distribution that IS my server farm. ...
    (comp.dcom.sys.cisco)
  • Re: Question for Spanning tree experts
    ... not sure I'm understanding the proposed setup. ... think it's safe to say that it doesn't belong in the core. ... distribution that IS my server farm. ... same subnet or vlan, split across 60 access layer switches, I can't see ...
    (comp.dcom.sys.cisco)