3 switch network

Discussion in 'Cisco' started by Sarastra Maya, Feb 27, 2007.

  1. There are three 3750 switches. To create three networks. Each would
    need to communicate with each other. Interconnection between them will
    be trunk via the LC (gig) interface.

    Do each of them need IP address?
    Would this work....
    192.168.1.x
    192.168.2.x
    192.168.3.x
    with class C mask: 255.255.255.0

    ?
    Sarastra Maya, Feb 27, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. "Sarastra Maya" <> wrote:

    >There are three 3750 switches. To create three networks. Each would
    >need to communicate with each other. Interconnection between them will
    >be trunk via the LC (gig) interface.
    >
    >Do each of them need IP address?
    >Would this work....
    >192.168.1.x
    >192.168.2.x
    >192.168.3.x
    >with class C mask: 255.255.255.0
    >

    How would you connect to them with-out an IP address?
    gene martinez, Feb 27, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. On Feb 27, 11:11 am, (gene martinez) wrote:
    > "Sarastra Maya" <> wrote:
    > >There are three 3750 switches. To create three networks. Each would
    > >need to communicate with each other. Interconnection between them will
    > >be trunk via the LC (gig) interface.

    >
    > >Do each of them need IP address?
    > >Would this work....
    > >192.168.1.x
    > >192.168.2.x
    > >192.168.3.x
    > >with class C mask: 255.255.255.0

    >
    > How would you connect to them with-out an IP address?


    I know that they would need IP addresses. My question was whether the
    IP scheme would work.

    Thanks!
    Sarastra Maya, Feb 27, 2007
    #3
  4. Sarastra Maya

    Trendkill Guest

    On 27 Feb, 12:13, "Sarastra Maya" <> wrote:
    > On Feb 27, 11:11 am, (gene martinez) wrote:
    >
    > > "Sarastra Maya" <> wrote:
    > > >There are three 3750 switches. To create three networks. Each would
    > > >need to communicate with each other. Interconnection between them will
    > > >be trunk via the LC (gig) interface.

    >
    > > >Do each of them need IP address?
    > > >Would this work....
    > > >192.168.1.x
    > > >192.168.2.x
    > > >192.168.3.x
    > > >with class C mask: 255.255.255.0

    >
    > > How would you connect to them with-out an IP address?

    >
    > I know that they would need IP addresses. My question was whether the
    > IP scheme would work.
    >
    > Thanks!


    Well yes it would work. But it all depends what you are trying to do
    and how you are trying to do it. A common architecture is creating
    VLANs on one server switch, and trunking those to the switches that
    need it. One VLAN would be the 'switch vlan', where the switches are
    IPed and can communicate with each other. The other vlans would be
    for servers, nodes, or whatever you want to setup.

    The other common architecture is each switch (presuming they all
    support layer 3 interfaces), owns its own vlan or set of vlans, and
    advertises the rest via layer 3 routing. The benefit to this is the
    elimination of spanning tree, as well as simplicity depending how your
    datacenter is setup. Basically, you would still have networks for the
    switches to communicate to each other, but none would be trunks and
    all would need to run a routing protocol. This also requires
    significant IP design as you would want to be able to summarize on
    each of the switches and avoid /24 networks being everywhere.

    Sorry to go off on a tangent, but the simple answer is yes it can
    work, but it all depends how you are trying to design from a layer 2
    and 3 perspective.........
    Trendkill, Feb 27, 2007
    #4
  5. On Feb 27, 12:13 pm, "Trendkill" <> wrote:
    > On 27 Feb, 12:13, "Sarastra Maya" <> wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > > On Feb 27, 11:11 am, (gene martinez) wrote:

    >
    > > > "Sarastra Maya" <> wrote:
    > > > >There are three 3750 switches. To create three networks. Each would
    > > > >need to communicate with each other. Interconnection between them will
    > > > >be trunk via the LC (gig) interface.

    >
    > > > >Do each of them need IP address?
    > > > >Would this work....
    > > > >192.168.1.x
    > > > >192.168.2.x
    > > > >192.168.3.x
    > > > >with class C mask: 255.255.255.0

    >
    > > > How would you connect to them with-out an IP address?

    >
    > > I know that they would need IP addresses. My question was whether the
    > > IP scheme would work.

    >
    > > Thanks!

    >
    > Well yes it would work. But it all depends what you are trying to do
    > and how you are trying to do it. A common architecture is creating
    > VLANs on one server switch, and trunking those to the switches that
    > need it. One VLAN would be the 'switch vlan', where the switches are
    > IPed and can communicate with each other. The other vlans would be
    > for servers, nodes, or whatever you want to setup.
    >
    > The other common architecture is each switch (presuming they all
    > support layer 3 interfaces), owns its own vlan or set of vlans, and
    > advertises the rest via layer 3 routing. The benefit to this is the
    > elimination of spanning tree, as well as simplicity depending how your
    > datacenter is setup. Basically, you would still have networks for the
    > switches to communicate to each other, but none would be trunks and
    > all would need to run a routing protocol. This also requires
    > significant IP design as you would want to be able to summarize on
    > each of the switches and avoid /24 networks being everywhere.
    >
    > Sorry to go off on a tangent, but the simple answer is yes it can
    > work, but it all depends how you are trying to design from a layer 2
    > and 3 perspective.........- Hide quoted text -
    >
    > - Show quoted text -


    Originally, I was thinking of making a "flat network" for this. So,
    Net1 (192.168.1.1), Net2 (192.168.1.2), and Net3 (192.168.1.3);
    255.255.255.0.

    I really want to keep this network as simple as possible, but at the
    same time do not want to flood every network with unecessary traffics;
    thus thinking that by seperating the three networks into three
    seperate subnets (192.168.1.x, 192.168.2.x, 192.168.3.x) would help.
    Now, I didn't know that I would have to run any routing algorithm with
    this scenario. What would you suggest? EIGRP?

    Hopefully I didn't just confuse you guys with that....

    Thanks!
    Sarastra Maya, Feb 27, 2007
    #5
  6. Sarastra Maya

    Trendkill Guest

    On 27 Feb, 13:55, "Sarastra Maya" <> wrote:
    > On Feb 27, 12:13 pm, "Trendkill" <> wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    > > On 27 Feb, 12:13, "Sarastra Maya" <> wrote:

    >
    > > > On Feb 27, 11:11 am, (gene martinez) wrote:

    >
    > > > > "Sarastra Maya" <> wrote:
    > > > > >There are three 3750 switches. To create three networks. Each would
    > > > > >need to communicate with each other. Interconnection between them will
    > > > > >be trunk via the LC (gig) interface.

    >
    > > > > >Do each of them need IP address?
    > > > > >Would this work....
    > > > > >192.168.1.x
    > > > > >192.168.2.x
    > > > > >192.168.3.x
    > > > > >with class C mask: 255.255.255.0

    >
    > > > > How would you connect to them with-out an IP address?

    >
    > > > I know that they would need IP addresses. My question was whether the
    > > > IP scheme would work.

    >
    > > > Thanks!

    >
    > > Well yes it would work. But it all depends what you are trying to do
    > > and how you are trying to do it. A common architecture is creating
    > > VLANs on one server switch, and trunking those to the switches that
    > > need it. One VLAN would be the 'switch vlan', where the switches are
    > > IPed and can communicate with each other. The other vlans would be
    > > for servers, nodes, or whatever you want to setup.

    >
    > > The other common architecture is each switch (presuming they all
    > > support layer 3 interfaces), owns its own vlan or set of vlans, and
    > > advertises the rest via layer 3 routing. The benefit to this is the
    > > elimination of spanning tree, as well as simplicity depending how your
    > > datacenter is setup. Basically, you would still have networks for the
    > > switches to communicate to each other, but none would be trunks and
    > > all would need to run a routing protocol. This also requires
    > > significant IP design as you would want to be able to summarize on
    > > each of the switches and avoid /24 networks being everywhere.

    >
    > > Sorry to go off on a tangent, but the simple answer is yes it can
    > > work, but it all depends how you are trying to design from a layer 2
    > > and 3 perspective.........- Hide quoted text -

    >
    > > - Show quoted text -

    >
    > Originally, I was thinking of making a "flat network" for this. So,
    > Net1 (192.168.1.1), Net2 (192.168.1.2), and Net3 (192.168.1.3);
    > 255.255.255.0.
    >
    > I really want to keep this network as simple as possible, but at the
    > same time do not want to flood every network with unecessary traffics;
    > thus thinking that by seperating the three networks into three
    > seperate subnets (192.168.1.x, 192.168.2.x, 192.168.3.x) would help.
    > Now, I didn't know that I would have to run any routing algorithm with
    > this scenario. What would you suggest? EIGRP?
    >
    > Hopefully I didn't just confuse you guys with that....
    >
    > Thanks!


    If I were you, I'd turn up all three networks on whichever switch is
    most 'central', and trunk the vlans to the other two where you can
    assign ports as necessary. If you don't like this model, and really
    want each switch to be its own network, then yes eigrp is a safe
    route. Rip would be ok too if there are no slow links and the network
    isn't going to grow into a large WAN with various speed links....up to
    you.
    Trendkill, Feb 27, 2007
    #6
  7. Sarastra Maya

    Mario Iseli Guest

    On Tue, 27 Feb 2007 10:55:25 -0800, Sarastra Maya wrote:

    > Originally, I was thinking of making a "flat network" for this. So,
    > Net1 (192.168.1.1), Net2 (192.168.1.2), and Net3 (192.168.1.3);
    > 255.255.255.0.
    >
    > I really want to keep this network as simple as possible, but at the
    > same time do not want to flood every network with unecessary traffics;
    > thus thinking that by seperating the three networks into three
    > seperate subnets (192.168.1.x, 192.168.2.x, 192.168.3.x) would help.
    > Now, I didn't know that I would have to run any routing algorithm with
    > this scenario. What would you suggest? EIGRP?


    EIGRP is nice, but I think it's more or less overkill because EIGRP is
    designed for larger environments and needs more planning than simply
    install RIP. RIP on Cisco devices is very nice... router rip; network
    192.168.16.0... :)

    > Hopefully I didn't just confuse you guys with that....


    As long as you don't need Cisco ACS Server everything is ok...

    > Thanks!


    --
    .''`. Mario Iseli <>
    : :' : proud user of Debian unstable
    `. `'`
    `- Debian - when you have better things to do than fixing a system
    Mario Iseli, Mar 6, 2007
    #7
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. praveen
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    3,075
    Bjørn Djupvik
    Oct 22, 2003
  2. Joel M. Baldwin

    bridge / layer 2 switch / layer 3 switch

    Joel M. Baldwin, Nov 6, 2003, in forum: Cisco
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    4,461
    Scooby
    Nov 6, 2003
  3. owmanstubbedmytoe
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    678
    Doug McIntyre
    Dec 5, 2004
  4. Replies:
    2
    Views:
    960
    Walter Roberson
    Sep 6, 2005
  5. Replies:
    3
    Views:
    6,366
    conft
    Jan 19, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page