dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
745
share rss forum feed

xdxml12

join:2012-10-26

Server TO core

Hello all,

I am struggling to see the point of why we really need a ToR. I want to implement a solution where I have all 30 of my servers plug directly into both my cores. My cores can do ISSU and are fully redundant fabric and mgmt.

However, im being pushed to place a ToR for my 30 servers. To me this is another layer for no reason.

Would appreciate if I can get an idea of which is better and possibly correct my reasoning/give me a better understanding?

Thanks

xdxml12

join:2012-10-26
Hi can we move this to cisco section plz

HELLFIRE
Premium
join:2009-11-25
kudos:19
reply to xdxml12
ToR?

Wanna clarify that term, and we can see if we can help you out or not.

Regards


Wily_One
Premium
join:2002-11-24
San Jose, CA
Reviews:
·AT&T U-Verse

2 edits
Hellfire:
Top of Rack, where the access switch resides in most modern data centers.

xdxml12:
I think the "Cisco answer" would be the role of the core is very different than the role of the access layer.

In practical terms, 30 servers is nothing. What do you do when you have 30,000 servers? Plug them all into your "core" and it's a core no more.

HELLFIRE
Premium
join:2009-11-25
kudos:19
Ah, thanks for that clarification, Wily_One See Profile

Regards


tubbynet
reminds me of the danse russe
Premium,MVM
join:2008-01-16
Chandler, AZ
kudos:1
reply to xdxml12
said by xdxml12:

However, im being pushed to place a ToR for my 30 servers. To me this is another layer for no reason.

Would appreciate if I can get an idea of which is better and possibly correct my reasoning/give me a better understanding?

this is all a matter of scale and following the "traditional" three-tier model for network design.

in purest of definition -- core is a routed, high speed block. no security, no layer-2, etc. qos is reserved for queuing on enacted policy, as markings are already present in packets.

distribution/agg -- is the "layer-2/layer-3 demarcation point". this is where you aggregate your trunks, enacted marking policy and security filtering. it also serves as a point to introduce services (firewall, load balancer, etc).

access is just a jumping point onto the network for the hosts.

some people collapse core and agg into a single box. some people use distinct boxen. however -- i'm always a staunch advocate of keeping access to itself. it is another management point -- but as you grow -- you already have the structure in place.

q.
--
"...if I in my north room dance naked, grotesquely before my mirror waving my shirt round my head and singing softly to myself..."

HELLFIRE
Premium
join:2009-11-25
kudos:19
reply to xdxml12
Question, what equipment exactly are you running xdxml12 See Profile? Nexus? Traditional Catalyst, like a 45xx or 65xx?

Also, what's the overall design / layout of the network, other than the core itself and the 30 servers?

3rdly, who's requesting the top-of-rack design? A client? Upper management? If it was an external client, I'd be
inclined to just do it as they requested it -- so long as they put the request in writing, and they're footing the
bill for the equipment / work.

Regards

markysharkey
Premium
join:2012-12-20
united kingd
If the external client is tech savvy, then doing what they ask my be an option. However if the client is not tech savvy he is (possibly maybe) looking to you to offer options.
--
Binary is as easy as 01 10 11


DarkLogix
Texan and Proud
Premium
join:2008-10-23
Baytown, TX
kudos:3
said by markysharkey:

If the external client is tech savvy, then doing what they ask my be an option. However if the client is not tech savvy he is (possibly maybe) looking to you to offer options.

Or is just tossing out buzzwords
--
semper idem
1KTzRMxN1a2ATrtAAvbmEnMBoY3E2kHtyv