Subnets between core and access/distribution layers & routing between layers

Discussion in 'Cisco' started by J, Dec 13, 2006.

  1. J

    J Guest

    I'm seeking out advice on connecting multihomed access & distribution
    devices back to a redundant core. Currently I'm working with a mix of

    1) A /28 or /27 VLAN was created on each core router to contain the
    aggregate links to the lower layered devices. The access/distribution
    devices have a L3 interface in this subnet.

    2) A /30 is used between the core routers and the access/distribution
    layer devices.

    3) A /29 with HSRP is used across the core routers on L3 VLAN
    interfaces and across the Ethernet interfaces on the
    access/distribution devices. Each core router has VLAN with a L3
    address in the /29 and a common standby IP also in the /29. The
    access/distribution layer device has 2 Ethernet links back to the core
    that are 1Q trunks. That VLAN has a L3 address in the /29. This only
    works on a few devices, namely switches used for aggregation or routers
    with L2 ports like ENET HWICs.

    I'm trying to figure out what the best approach is in this service
    provider environment. I personally favor #2. I believe this fits in
    better with a clean hierarchical IGP. I'm moving from OSPF to IS-IS in
    the very near future and would like to better utilize areas than they
    have been in the past (OSPF area 0 is touching every single device).
    #1 would make it difficult to separate IS-IS areas I think, especially
    if I use the VLANs for inter-connection VLANs for more than one type of
    device that should be in separate areas.

    IPs aren't a concern. We're migrating from a public to a private IP
    infrastructure for the heart of this service provider. This will make
    ARIN happy.

    On a related topic, I'm also soliciting advice on the basic
    configuration moving forward for edge and aggregation devices. Like I
    said earlier, we're moving to a pure IS-IS environment with a redundant
    core. All devices will be multihomed to the redundant core routers.
    All devices whether it be an access server, router terminating ATM PVCs
    for DSL, or a pair of aggregation switches that mulithome CMTSs will be
    running IS-IS and will be advertising the local routes back to the core
    (some with summarization like the access servers and ATM routers). The
    access/distribution layer devices are set up in one of 2 ways right
    now. Either their default route is originated in the IGP or they use a
    static default route (and in some cases still receive an default route
    from the IGP but don't use it). Should I originate a default route and
    remove the static default, should I use the static default route, or
    should I have a higher cost static route as a backup (rather useless I
    think)? Is there a best practice on this one that I can cite?

    I just thought of another quick question. Do many people use (or find
    useful) 1Q trunks in a service provider network? I only have 2 1Q
    trunks in this entire network. Personally I would rather use L3
    routing between capable devices wherever possible. I suppose if I use
    a pair of switches for aggregation (EMI code on 3750s or 4948s for
    example) I could use a pair of 1Q trunks between then for HSRP
    purposes. Do any other uses come to mind?

    J, Dec 13, 2006
    1. Advertisements

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. Jonathan
    Jul 26, 2004
  2. bigal
    Mar 22, 2006
  3. Replies:
    May 5, 2006
  4. Ulf Tropp
  5. Replies:
    Aug 29, 2008