Is the Distribution Layer Still Needed? 72
arnie_apesacrappin wonders: "I'm in the process of designing the network for a new building in what I would consider a small to medium sized company. It is on the scale of tens of access layer switches, not hundreds. There is a ongoing argument about the need for a distribution layer. My position is that with today's layer 2/3 switches in the core, the distribution layer is outdated for a network of this size. The layer 2/3 core can provide all the aggregation services of the old distribution layer and the routing/filtering functionality of the core with better price and performance. My opponents can only argue that having a distribution layer is the standard. So, are there good reasons for having a distribution layer in a small to medium network? If you were going to argue against the distribution layer, what points would you make?"
You don't need it (Score:4, Informative)
You are correct that the layer 3 switches offer a different perspective on how networks can be drawn today.
It used to be that big switches would sit in the computer room, with clunky slow routers sitting on top of them, acting as Routers-On-a-Stick, with some sort of trunk connecting them to the core switch.
I think the easiest design that will give you the most benefit would be to just trunk a link to whatever closet, and use a cheap layer 3 switch (perhaps Extreme or a similar variety) in the data closet, for end user hookups.
Have gateways set up on the switch, use a default route pointing back to the core, and divide up the ports to whatever VLANs you ported over--I prefer to have a management VLAN and a few ports set up for that, maybe an extra one for SPAN/Mirroring if necessary.
The end user traffic would likely never be routed until it reached the core, unless you'd like to trunk the core traffic over to the closet. Then the access layer switch could route to the core subnet if necessary and save the core switch(es) the effort of doing such routing. If you have a small business, it wouldn't make much difference either way--many chassis based layer 3 switches do 64Gb per second routing with their fabric, and it is unlikely anyone would notice a delay from the routing in the closet or in the core.
Again, it depends on how you want it to look and how you want trouble shooting to be. But you are absolutely correct--a distribution layer is no longer necessary. I would consider it, really, to be the Core/Distribution and then Access Layers, or the Core and Distribution/Access Layers.
You still are using the concept of the distribution layer, but it has merged with another layer, depending on your design.
Oh, and don't forget about spanning tree
No clear choice. (Score:3, Informative)
It's usually not needed in a network of that size (Score:5, Informative)
1. how you link your merged core/distribution switches: if your access uplinks are layer 2, you then have to span VLAN across core/distribution switches. If you plan on having your access switches perform layer 3 routing look into the costs your vendor may charge for that functionality. Some charge as much as $10,000 for the license.
2. Be careful you grow your VLANs and spanning trees. Definitely use per-VLAN spanning trees. Also seriously consider rapid spanning tree or vendor specific hacks (uplinkfast, backbone fast, etc.)
3. Use server access switches. Seriously consider redundant control processors in these.
4. Seriously consider redundant control and switch fabrics for the the core/distribution switches. In the three-layer model, this was not as much of a requirement. Also seriously consider the failover time associated with the redundancy you bought. Times ranges from stateful/1 second failover to 90 second reboots to the redundant processor.
5. If you do layer 3 routing and the access layer be very careful with your routing protocol design and avoid black-holes. Run through all failure scenarios and make sure you're covered.
6. Consider where you want to perform filtering for security, QoS, etc. By eliminating the distribution layer, you're forcing this the access layer. (arguably it belongs there, but think about how many places you'll be configuring and monitoring)
7. Most importantly, consider the costs after you've considered the above. You may find out that you're not saving much. Most of my clients do save, but some find out that after they've added redundancy and possibly upgraded switch models they are close the same cost.
8. Consider your support group. What are they used to? Can they adapt? Can they handle the added functionality that's been pushed to the core or access switches.
Again, I have clients with 1500 nodes running fine with a combined core/distribution. I also have a clients with 200 nodes that mandated three layers. IMHO the break point is somewhere around 1000-1500. As always every place is different, be careful, plan and you'll be fine.
Re:Layer 3 Switch? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Spoken like a true CCNA (Score:3, Informative)
Reading TFA and the other posts, I can see the point of reaching for that degree of networking control in a big enterprise. At the other end of the scale - the home LAN level, network bandwidth is practically where nuclear-generated electricity once promised to be - too cheap to measure. I went from 10Mb to 100Mb because it was cheap and available, not because of need, and any future migrations will likely be the same.
You're obviously in the middle, between the home LAN and the big enterprise. I suspect the degree of network control you need depends more on your usage than simply the size of your network. For instance, do you have automated tools that periodically dump a Gig of data to a fileserver? Do you feel it necessary to detect and/or prohibit employee net activity? Do you have multiple sites, or other circumstances that form weak links that need extra control? How is your backup architected, and does that constitute a weak link in the network? Or your fileservers, for that matter?
Finally can you just deploy the architecture you're proposing, but make sure the equipment you buy can fit into a 3-layer with a little reconfiguration. That may become necessary as the company grows, too.
I've designed just such a thing (Score:5, Informative)
I'm a consultant and work with hardware from just about anyone, so it makes no difference who they bought. We were hired to design a network for this school using various vendors equipment. Primarily to compare costs.
In the end, they went with a solution from HP. A single 5300xl in each building connected to a bunch of 48 port edge switches in each closet. Their server room has a 5300xl with a couple Gig blades and a second 48 port Gigbit switch.
What really decided the issue was cost. They didn't need support for all the assorted protocols and features you get with cisco, and they didn't want to pay for it. With cisco, you had a 6500 series monster in the datacenter, then a distribution switch in each building, and a bunch of edge switches.
The HP solution was well under a third of the cost of the cisco solution, also free lifetime next day replacement warranty on hardware. For the money they saved, they can afford to have a shelf full of spares, including a spare core switch.
Personally, instead of looking at what model you want to use, look at what you need your network to do, then talk to your prefered vendors and see who can do it at the best price point.
Re:Layer 3 Switch? (Score:3, Informative)
Switches have grown up, since the advent of VLAN's, they've been able to 'route' between vlans, and have expanded to OSPF, and other high end routing protocols, while keeping the port count. These higher end switches don't usually have WAN ports (T1, T3 type), or the ability to do super high end routing (OC-16, OC-192, Terabit), which is why Cisco and Juniper still sell routers. The two terms have become quite unclear over the past decade.
Re:It's usually not needed in a network of that si (Score:3, Informative)
Buying 15 smaller switches, and collapsing/trunking 200 switches onto 15/30 Gig/10Gig uplinks to a core means my core only needs 15/30 ports, instead of 200+. Sure, you don't *need* it, if you can afford the port density of that size on your core, but any decent sized network is going to be pressed for that kind of cash
It's significantly cheaper/easier to provided redundancy for 30 GigE ports than it is to provide redundancy for 150 GigE ports (both in cost and wiring complexity...).
But, if you've only got 15 switches, I'd just forgo the distribution layer, as it'd be cheaper and easier for you to manage a single core (or maybe 2) with a single 15 port GigE blade or something than to setup proper distribution switch layers.
But, as you grow, definitely make sure you investigate it - most of my sites have 3-4 distribution switches, serving 8-10 access switches each, but I've got one site where the previous designer decided a distrbution layer was unneccesary. He left me with 83!!! GigE fiber ports terminated on 2 core chassis ('cause the vendor didn't sell anything with 83 GigE ports in one chassis...that should have been a warning sign). So, when I want to upgrade that sites equipment, I'm kind of up a creek with no paddle, as it's INCREDIBLY disruptive and hard to move all that fiber, etc.
So, like the parent said, 'it depends', and make sure you are planning for realistic growth over 4-5 year period (at least)...
Re:Your network is too small. (Score:2, Informative)
Customers who purchase direct from Cisco but who do not hold a Cisco service contract and customers who purchase through third-party vendors but are unsuccessful at obtaining fixed software through their point of sale should get their upgrades by contacting the Cisco Technical Assistance Center (TAC). TAC contacts are as follows. * +1 800 553 2447 (toll free from within North America) * +1 408 526 7209 (toll call from anywhere in the world) * e-mail: tac@cisco.com Please have your product serial number available and give the URL of this notice as evidence of your entitlement to a free upgrade. Free upgrades for non-contract customers must be requested through the TAC.