hacampusdg.mif Campus Network for High Availability Design Guide Cisco Validated Design May 21, 2008 Introduction This document is the first in a series of two documents describing the best way to...

1 answer below »
I need question #3 done under "Enterprise Network Design" with proper citation from the PDF file in the attachment "Campus Network For High Availability Design Guide" I have my design in the attachments as well.



hacampusdg.mif Campus Network for High Availability Design Guide Cisco Validated Design May 21, 2008 Introduction This document is the first in a series of two documents describing the best way to design campus networks using the hierarchical model. The second document, High Availability Campus Recovery Analysis, provides extensive test results showing the convergence times for the different topologies described in this document, and is available at the following website: http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/solutions/Enterprise/Campus/HA_recovery_DG/campusRecove ry.html This document includes the following sections: • Campus Network Design Overview, page 2 • Design Recommendations Summary, page 2 • Hierarchical Network Design Model, page 8 • Network and In-the-Box Redundancy, page 12 • Foundation Services Technologies, page 15 • Design Best Practices, page 44 • Summary, page 60 Audience This document is intended for customers and enterprise systems engineers who are building or intend to build an enterprise campus network and require design best practice recommendations and configuration examples. Corporate Headquarters: Copyright © 2008 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved. Cisco Systems, Inc., 170 West Tasman Drive, San Jose, CA 95134-1706 USA http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/solutions/Enterprise/Campus/HA_recovery_DG/campusRecovery.html Campus Network Design Overview Document Objectives This document presents recommended designs for the campus network, and includes descriptions of various topologies, routing protocols, configuration guidelines, and other considerations relevant to the design of highly available and reliable campus networks. Campus Network Design Overview Designing a campus network may not appear as interesting or exciting as designing an IP telephony network, an IP video network, or even designing a wireless network. However, emerging applications like these are built upon the campus foundation. Much like the construction of a house, if the engineering work is skipped at the foundation level, the house will crack and eventually fail. If the foundation services and reference design in an enterprise network are not rock-solid, applications that depend on the services offered by the network like IP telephony, IP video, and wireless communications will eventually suffer performance and reliability challenges. To continue the analogy, if a reliable foundation is engineered and built, the house will stand for years, growing with the owner through alterations and expansions to provide safe and reliable service throughout its life cycle. The same is true for an enterprise campus network. The design principles and implementation best practices described in this document are tried-and-true lessons learned over time. Your enterprise can take advantage of these lessons to implement a network that will provide the necessary flexibility as the business requirements of your network infrastructure evolve over time. Design Recommendations Summary This section summarizes the design recommendations presented in this document and includes the following topics: • Tuning for Optimized Convergence, page 2 • Design Guidance Review, page 4 Tuning for Optimized Convergence This section summarizes the recommendations for achieving optimum convergence in the access, distribution, and core layers, and includes the following topics: • Access Layer Tuning, page 2 • Distribution Layer Tuning, page 3 • Core Layer Tuning, page 4 Access Layer Tuning The following are the recommendations for optimal access layer convergence: • Limit VLANs to a single closet whenever possible. There are many reasons why STP/RSTP convergence should be avoided for the most deterministic and highly available network topology. In general, when you avoid STP/RSTP, convergence can be predictable, bounded, and reliably tuned. 2 Campus Network for High Availability Design Guide OL-15734-01 Design Recommendations Summary Additionally, it should be noted that in soft failure conditions where keepalives (BPDU or routing protocol hellos) are lost, L2 environments fail open, forwarding traffic with unknown destinations on all ports and causing potential broadcast storms; while L3 environments fail closed, dropping routing neighbor relationships, breaking connectivity, and isolating the soft failed devices. • If STP is required, use Rapid PVST+. If you are compelled by application requirements to depend on STP to resolve convergence events, use Rapid PVST+. Rapid PVST+ is far superior to 802.1d and even PVST+ (802.1d plus Cisco enhancements) from a convergence perspective. • Set trunks to on/on with no negotiate, prune unused VLANs, and use VTP transparent mode. When configuring switch-to-switch interconnections to carry multiple VLANs, set DTP to on/on with no negotiate to avoid DTP protocol negotiation. This tuning can save seconds of outage when restoring a failed link or node. Unused VLANs should be manually pruned from trunked interfaces to avoid broadcast propagation. Finally, VTP transparent mode should be used because the need for a shared common VLAN database is reduced. • Match PAgP settings between CatOS and Cisco IOS software. When connecting a Cisco IOS software device to a CatOS device, make sure that PAgP settings are the same on both sides. The defaults are different. CatOS devices should have PAgP set to off when connecting to an Cisco IOS software device if EtherChannels are not configured. • Consider EIGRP/Routing in the access layer. A routing protocol like EIGRP, when properly tuned, can achieve better convergence results than designs that rely on STP to resolve convergence events. A routing protocol can even achieve better convergence results than the time-tested L2/L3 boundary hierarchical design. However, some additional complexity (uplink IP addressing and subnetting) and loss of flexibility are associated with this design alternative. Additionally, this option is not as widely deployed in the field as the L2/L3 distribution layer boundary model. Distribution Layer Tuning The following are the recommendations for optimal distribution layer convergence: • Use equal-cost redundant connections to the core for fastest convergence and to avoid black holes. While it is tempting to reduce cost by reducing links between the distribution nodes to the core in a partial mesh design, the complexity and convergence tradeoffs related to this design are ultimately far more expensive. • Connect distribution nodes to facilitate summarization and L2 VLANs spanning multiple access layer switches where required. Summarization is required to facilitate optimum EIGRP or OSPF convergence. If summarization is implemented at the distribution layer, the distribution nodes must be linked or routing black holes occur. Additionally, in a less than optimal design where VLANs span multiple access layer switches, the distribution nodes must be linked by an L2 connection. Otherwise, multiple convergence events can occur for a single failure and undesirable traffic paths are taken after the spanning tree converges. • Utilize GLBP/HSRP millisecond timers. Convergence around a link or node failure in the L2/L3 distribution boundary model depends on default gateway redundancy and failover. Millisecond timers can reliably be implemented to achieve sub-second (800 ms) convergence based on HSRP/GLBP failover. • Tune GLBP/HSRP preempt delay to avoid black holes. 3 Campus Network for High Availability Design Guide OL-15734-01 Design Recommendations Summary Ensure that the distribution node has connectivity to the core before it preempts its HSRP/GLBP standby peer so that traffic is not dropped while connectivity to the core is established. • Tune EtherChannel and CEF load balancing to ensure optimum utilization of redundant, equal-cost links. Monitor redundant link utilization in the hierarchical model and take steps to tune both L2 (EtherChannel) and L3 (CEF) links to avoid under-utilization. Use L3 and L4 (UDP/TCP port) information as input to hashing algorithms. When you use EtherChannel interconnections, use L3 and L4 information to achieve optimum utilization. When you use L3 routed equal-cost redundant paths, vary the input to the CEF hashing algorithm to improve load distribution. Use the default L3 information for the core nodes and use L3 with L4 information for the distribution nodes. Core Layer Tuning For optimum core layer convergence, build triangles, not squares, to take advantage of equal-cost redundant paths for the best deterministic convergence. When considering core topologies, it is important to consider the benefits of topologies with point-to-point links. Link up/down topology changes can be propagated almost immediately to the underlying protocols. Topologies with redundant equal-cost load sharing links are the most deterministic and optimized for convergence measured in milliseconds. With topologies that rely on indirect notification and timer-based detection, convergence is non-deterministic and convergence is measured in seconds. Design Guidance Review This section summarizes the campus network design recommendations, and includes the following topics: • Layer 3 Foundations Services, page 4 • Layer 2 Foundation Services, page 5 • General Design Considerations, page 7 Layer 3 Foundations Services The following are the design recommendations for Layer 3 foundation services: • Design for deterministic convergence—triangles, not squares. Topologies where point-to-point physical links are deployed provide the most deterministic convergence. Physical link up/down is faster than timer-based convergence. • Control peering across access layer links (passive interfaces). Unless you control L3 peering in the hierarchical campus model, the distribution nodes establish L3 peer relationships many times using the access nodes that they support, wasting memory and bandwidth. • Summarize at the distribution. 4 Campus Network for High Availability Design Guide OL-15734-01 Design Recommendations Summary It is important to summarize routing information as it leaves the distribution nodes towards the core for both EIGRP and OSPF. When you force summarization at this layer of the network, bounds are implemented on EIGRP queries and OSPF LSA/SPF propagation, which optimizes both routing protocols for campus convergence. • Optimize CEF for best utilization of redundant L3 paths. The hierarchical campus model implements many L3 equal-cost redundant paths. Typical traffic flows in the campus cross multiple redundant paths as traffic flows from the access layer across the distribution and core and into the data center. Unless you vary the decision input for the CEF hashing algorithm at the core and distribution layers, CEF polarization can result in under-utilization of redundant paths. Layer 2 Foundation Services The following are the design recommendations for Layer 2 foundation services: • Use Rapid PVST+ if you must span VLANs. If you are compelled by application requirements to depend on STP to resolve convergence events, use Rapid PVST+, which is far superior to 802.1d and even PVST+ (802.1d plus Cisco enhancements) from the convergence perspective. • Use Rapid PVST+ to protect against user-side loops. Even though the recommended design does not depend on STP to resolve link or node failure events, STP is required to protect against user-side loops. There are many ways that a loop can be introduced on the user-facing access layer ports. Wiring mistakes, misconfigured end stations, or malicious users can create a loop. STP is required to ensure a loop-free topology and to protect the rest of the network from problems created in the access layer. • Use the Spanning-Tree toolkit to protect against unexpected STP participation. Switches or workstations running a version
Answered Same DayMar 30, 2021

Answer To: hacampusdg.mif Campus Network for High Availability Design Guide Cisco Validated Design May 21, 2008...

Amit answered on Mar 31 2021
136 Votes
Title of the assignment:
Student’s name:
Student ID:
Professor’s name:
Course title:
Date: 3/31/2020
Table of Contents
a)    Layer 3 routing pro
tocol    3
I.    Answer 1    3
II.    Answer 2    3
b)    Layer 2 redundancy    4
I.    Answer 1    4
II.    Answer 2    4
c)    FHRPs    5
I.    Answer 1    5
II.    Answer 2    5
d)    Data Aggregation and Oversubscription    5
I.    Answer 1    5
II.    Answer 2    6
e)    Security    6
I.    Answer 1    6
a) Layer 3 routing protocol
I. Answer 1
Because of simple configuration nature, the EIGRP protocol will be implemented. The reasons for making EIGRP implementation are:
· Behaves like internal protocol.
· Easy implementation with Cisco devices.
· It can easily be implemented on BPG maintaining connections to internet.
We will implement the EIGRP among core layer and distribution layer so that the traffic routes of all modules like help desk and others can define their exterior protocols to maintain their connections.
II. Answer 2
The points showing special notes regarding implementation of EIGRP to provided case are supplied underneath:
· The passive interfaces of EIGRP can be implemented on layer 3, so that, unnecessary sending the HELLO packets can be removed.
· The passive interfaces of EIGRP can be implemented on DLS switches that are further making connections with ALS switch.
· VLSM sub-netting is also implemented with EIGRP, so that, IP assigning to complete network becomes easy.
· The use of load balancing feature provided by EIGRP can help in easy packet routing to this...
SOLUTION.PDF

Answer To This Question Is Available To Download

Related Questions & Answers

More Questions »

Submit New Assignment

Copy and Paste Your Assignment Here