Router for Internal network

Discussion in 'Cisco' started by Pascal, Jan 17, 2007.

  1. Pascal

    Pascal Guest

    Hello,

    I started working on a project that requires some experience in routing
    that I do not have.


    We want to have 2 different networks that are physically in the same
    building to talk to each other. That is basically what we need to do in
    a few words.


    Now there are some requirements:
    These 2 networks will have users ( about 10 ) on network1 and file
    servers on network2
    Users have been used to be connected onto the file servers directly
    through 1Gb switches before( they were on network2 before ). But because
    of a company split up, we are putting some users into network1. Until
    the company really splits up they will still have to get access to the
    file servers.

    I have been looking at different products, but also have been trying to
    see if we could contain prices.
    I do not know the Cisco products well enough to know which series I
    should use ( I've only setup small offices using routers and firewalls
    for broadband connection ).



    My question is : What would be the appropriate Cisco series we should
    look at to allow these 10 users to access their files at a decent speed
    ( meaning they won't see much difference with what they had before)
    their files are usually about 10 MB word/excel documents.



    Thank you very much in advance.
    Pascal, Jan 17, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Pascal

    none Guest

    On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 18:37:17 -0500, Pascal wrote:

    > Hello,
    >
    > I started working on a project that requires some experience in routing
    > that I do not have.
    >
    >
    > We want to have 2 different networks that are physically in the same
    > building to talk to each other. That is basically what we need to do in
    > a few words.
    >
    >
    > Now there are some requirements:
    > These 2 networks will have users ( about 10 ) on network1 and file
    > servers on network2
    > Users have been used to be connected onto the file servers directly
    > through 1Gb switches before( they were on network2 before ). But because
    > of a company split up, we are putting some users into network1. Until
    > the company really splits up they will still have to get access to the
    > file servers.
    >

    <snip>
    >
    >
    > My question is : What would be the appropriate Cisco series we should
    > look at to allow these 10 users to access their files at a decent speed
    > ( meaning they won't see much difference with what they had before)
    > their files are usually about 10 MB word/excel documents.
    >
    >


    The Cisco 2821 router comes with two one gigibit interfaces - that should
    suffice if you want to maintain the 1gb speed.
    none, Jan 18, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Pascal

    Guest

    Hello, this is Pascal

    Thanks for your quick answer.

    I am sorry I should have had notify that I don't necessarely need these
    people to have 1Gb speed. However, what I am wondering then is:
    if a router has for example 2 interfaces at 100BaseT, does that mean
    that the time it will take for a packet to go from a network to another
    one will be pretty much the same as the time it would take for a packet
    to go through a 100 BaseT switch ?

    I assume not, but would that speed difference ( between a switch and
    router ) be divided by 2, by 10, by 50 ? ( approximately )




    Routing, as far as I remember, requires de-encapsulating and
    re-encapsulating a bunch of data that a switch doesn't do ( since a
    switch works at layer2 ). The process of encapsulating, takes CPU and
    time. But I do not know how to compare this time with a network switch.






    Thank you very much again !


    none wrote:
    > On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 18:37:17 -0500, Pascal wrote:
    >
    > > Hello,
    > >
    > > I started working on a project that requires some experience in routing
    > > that I do not have.
    > >
    > >
    > > We want to have 2 different networks that are physically in the same
    > > building to talk to each other. That is basically what we need to do in
    > > a few words.
    > >
    > >
    > > Now there are some requirements:
    > > These 2 networks will have users ( about 10 ) on network1 and file
    > > servers on network2
    > > Users have been used to be connected onto the file servers directly
    > > through 1Gb switches before( they were on network2 before ). But because
    > > of a company split up, we are putting some users into network1. Until
    > > the company really splits up they will still have to get access to the
    > > file servers.
    > >

    > <snip>
    > >
    > >
    > > My question is : What would be the appropriate Cisco series we should
    > > look at to allow these 10 users to access their files at a decent speed
    > > ( meaning they won't see much difference with what they had before)
    > > their files are usually about 10 MB word/excel documents.
    > >
    > >

    >
    > The Cisco 2821 router comes with two one gigibit interfaces - that should
    > suffice if you want to maintain the 1gb speed.
    , Jan 18, 2007
    #3
  4. Pascal

    hack.bac Guest

    With a network as small as 10 users, a Cisco 800 series router is as
    far as I'd venture. (Though I don't think they have a Gigabit model
    yet.) I doubt the latency on a 100Mb router interface will be
    noticeable.

    Additionally, since the set-up is temporary and you mentioned keeping
    the price down, another home router should even do the trick.

    hack.bac


    Pascal wrote:
    > Hello,
    >
    > I started working on a project that requires some experience in routing
    > that I do not have.
    >
    >
    > We want to have 2 different networks that are physically in the same
    > building to talk to each other. That is basically what we need to do in
    > a few words.
    >
    >
    > Now there are some requirements:
    > These 2 networks will have users ( about 10 ) on network1 and file
    > servers on network2
    > Users have been used to be connected onto the file servers directly
    > through 1Gb switches before( they were on network2 before ). But because
    > of a company split up, we are putting some users into network1. Until
    > the company really splits up they will still have to get access to the
    > file servers.
    >
    > I have been looking at different products, but also have been trying to
    > see if we could contain prices.
    > I do not know the Cisco products well enough to know which series I
    > should use ( I've only setup small offices using routers and firewalls
    > for broadband connection ).
    >
    >
    >
    > My question is : What would be the appropriate Cisco series we should
    > look at to allow these 10 users to access their files at a decent speed
    > ( meaning they won't see much difference with what they had before)
    > their files are usually about 10 MB word/excel documents.
    >
    >
    >
    > Thank you very much in advance.
    hack.bac, Jan 18, 2007
    #4
  5. In article <>,
    <> wrote:
    >I am sorry I should have had notify that I don't necessarely need these
    >people to have 1Gb speed. However, what I am wondering then is:
    >if a router has for example 2 interfaces at 100BaseT, does that mean
    >that the time it will take for a packet to go from a network to another
    >one will be pretty much the same as the time it would take for a packet
    >to go through a 100 BaseT switch ?


    >I assume not, but would that speed difference ( between a switch and
    >router ) be divided by 2, by 10, by 50 ? ( approximately )


    The Cisco 3550 and 3750 route and switch at the same speeds.
    These days, the routing speed for "multilayer switches" or
    "Layer 3 switches" is often fairly close to the layer 2 switching
    speed on the same switch.

    You might find the summary information useful at
    http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/765/tools/quickreference/index.shtml
    For example it shows that on the Cisco 85x series of routers, the
    routing performance for short (64 byte) packets is 5.12 megabits
    per second. As an estimate, you would expect about 20 times that
    throughput for full-sized TCP packets (i.e., it is limited mostly
    by the number of packets per second, not by their size.) Depending on
    the access pattern, the performance might or might not be a noticable
    difference compared to the gigabit they are getting now.
    Walter Roberson, Jan 18, 2007
    #5
  6. Pascal

    Pascal Guest

    Walter,

    Thank you very very much, this is a very interesting link you sent me
    there !

    Your example about the 85x series is perfect.

    "hack.bac" suggests staying to the lowest level of the Cisco series (
    800 ).

    Reading the PDF
    http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/765/tools/quickreference/routerperformance.pdf
    ( Router Perf ). It seems that they will really get a 5.12 Mbits
    throughput out of that little 85x device. It is pretty much as fast as
    cable modem download speed if I am correct ( well at least in some part
    of the US ) :)
    Could this be a good example to explain my manager ( who wants to go
    with the cheapest way ) that the 800 series will be really slow whenever
    these users are going to start accessing word or PDF documents that
    could be sometimes 10 to 15 MBytes ?



    I am really sorry about all these questions, but I am supposed to design
    the network for this setup but I do not want to end up having to redo
    everything because after the first day of work, people complain about
    speed.
    Unfortunately ( and I'm sure you guys have been in these situations )
    management wants to go with the cheapest way.



    ---------------

    On a totally different note now.

    In order to explain things easier in my original post I was saying that
    there will be 2 different physical networks merging to a router. In
    reality I will use VLANs.
    Which means that we will have people from company 1 working in the same
    offices as people in company2.
    They will all be connected to the same switches that are VLAN compliant.
    The switches will be hooked up to a router ( the router we have been
    talking about since the beginning ).

    I am not very familiar with L3 switches and what they do, BUT if this is
    what I think it is.
    Can I use one of these L3 switches and use it to route and switch these
    2 VLANs together ?

    The reason why I am worried about this, is that the company will split
    even more and we might eventually have to create a 3rd and a 4th VLAN
    later on, even though these people will be staying at their desks and
    connect to the same switches.


    Again thank you very much for all your precious advices.












    Walter Roberson wrote:
    > In article <>,
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> I am sorry I should have had notify that I don't necessarely need these
    >> people to have 1Gb speed. However, what I am wondering then is:
    >> if a router has for example 2 interfaces at 100BaseT, does that mean
    >> that the time it will take for a packet to go from a network to another
    >> one will be pretty much the same as the time it would take for a packet
    >> to go through a 100 BaseT switch ?
    >>

    >
    >
    >> I assume not, but would that speed difference ( between a switch and
    >> router ) be divided by 2, by 10, by 50 ? ( approximately )
    >>

    >
    > The Cisco 3550 and 3750 route and switch at the same speeds.
    > These days, the routing speed for "multilayer switches" or
    > "Layer 3 switches" is often fairly close to the layer 2 switching
    > speed on the same switch.
    >
    > You might find the summary information useful at
    > http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/765/tools/quickreference/index.shtml
    > For example it shows that on the Cisco 85x series of routers, the
    > routing performance for short (64 byte) packets is 5.12 megabits
    > per second. As an estimate, you would expect about 20 times that
    > throughput for full-sized TCP packets (i.e., it is limited mostly
    > by the number of packets per second, not by their size.) Depending on
    > the access pattern, the performance might or might not be a noticable
    > difference compared to the gigabit they are getting now.
    >
    Pascal, Jan 18, 2007
    #6
  7. In article <eooba6$1p9i$>, Pascal <> wrote:

    >Reading the PDF
    >http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/765/tools/quickreference/routerperformance.pdf
    >( Router Perf ). It seems that they will really get a 5.12 Mbits
    >throughput out of that little 85x device. It is pretty much as fast as
    >cable modem download speed if I am correct ( well at least in some part
    >of the US ) :)
    >Could this be a good example to explain my manager ( who wants to go
    >with the cheapest way ) that the 800 series will be really slow whenever
    >these users are going to start accessing word or PDF documents that
    >could be sometimes 10 to 15 MBytes ?


    The 5.12 Mbit/s is the rate assuming 64 byte packets. For your
    purposes, you need to get an estimate of the average packet size
    for whatever file transfer protocol the users will be using
    to access the files (e.g., SMB or Novell Netware or HTTP). SMB
    over NETBIOS does not (if I remember correctly) use full sized IP
    packets; I believe that SMB over IP (port 443) is more efficient.
    HTTP does use full size packets to send the chunks of data, once
    the negotiation of what to send how is completed.

    Historically, people have noticed that packet distributions tend to
    be bimodal -- that is, the majority of packets tend to be < 256 bytes,
    but with another peak in the 1000 to 1500 byte range, with relatively
    little in the middle. But that's long-term packet counts, and short
    packets are usually associated with interactive work such as ping or
    ARP or telnet -- situations in which what is important to people
    is latency rather than throughput. Something like an 800 series
    router is going to have a higher latency than a Cisco multilayer switch,
    but it would depend a lot on the network load and people's expectations
    as to whether that higher latency would make a noticable difference.

    Considering connection setup times, if you are using something like
    HTTP to transfer the files, you are probably going to average
    -roughly- 1 1/3 kilobytes of payload per packet. 15 megabytes
    divided by 1 1/3 kilobytes .. call it 11000 packets. At 10000
    packets per second (the rated 850 performance), that would be
    about 1.1 seconds to transfer the file; it would probably take longer
    for Acroread to load the file. 10000 packets per second at
    1500 bytes per packet would slightly exceed 100 megabits/second, so
    the transfer might take slightly longer (especially if the hosts
    have not been tuned for a high receive window and so on.)

    The slowest of the 3750 series, the -24TS, forwards at 6.5 Mpps,
    about 650 times faster than the 850 -- which means that the limiting
    factor if you were to connect through one of those would be the
    line rate (e.g., 100 megabits/second). As we saw above, though,
    the line rate is fairly close to 100 megabits/second if you are using
    nearly full packets on the 850 router, so the 3750 would only
    start to be an advantage if you realistically have contention with
    multiple people trying to grab those 10-15 megabyte files simultaneously;
    in such a situation, gigabit to the fileserver would permit multiple
    hosts to be served at 100 megabits/second.


    But we need to take a step back and look at your security. You are
    talking about the company splitting up, which implies that over time
    you are likely to want to interpose security between the VLANs. The
    850 is going to slow down noticably if you put security on it; the Cat
    3750 switch family is relatively limited in the kinds of security you
    can activate, but has a lot more horsepower. Next question to ask
    is whether the 850 supports VLANs. And the answer to that is NO -- but
    the 870 series does; it is about 2 1/2 times faster and so would have
    more headroom if you decided to activate the firewall features.
    Walter Roberson, Jan 18, 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. Mike

    internal to internal NAT?

    Mike, Apr 19, 2004, in forum: Cisco
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    675
  2. EG
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    8,021
    Walter Roberson
    Dec 30, 2004
  3. GeekMarine1972
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    1,268
    Walter Roberson
    Jan 15, 2005
  4. JoelSeph
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    6,701
    JoelSeph
    Jan 23, 2006
  5. Giuen
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    839
    Giuen
    Sep 12, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page