[c-nsp] Switch recommendation

[Tantsura, Jeff]

Vincent,

Have you considered using Mobile IP?
In past years I did some trials for Dutch Trains organisation, it worked
quit well.

--
Jeff Tantsura  CCIE# 11416
Senior IP Network Engineer


-----Original Message-----
From: Vincent De Keyzer [mailto:vincent at dekeyzer.net] 
Sent: 09 November 2005 18:13
To: 'Church, Chuck'
Cc: cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
Subject: RE: [c-nsp] Switch recommendation

Chuck,

as I said, we will split the city into several VLANs - not 1 VLAN per BS,
but one VLAN per group of, say, 500 users: does that sound like a good
figure to you?

Vincent
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: cisco-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net [mailto:cisco-nsp-
> bounces at puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Church, Chuck
> Sent: mercredi 9 novembre 2005 17:54
> To: Vincent De Keyzer
> Cc: cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
> Subject: RE: [c-nsp] Switch recommendation
> 
> Yeah, this has potential for a total meltdown.  If it was a controlled
> enterprise, it'd be one thing.  But you're providing ISP functionality
> to normal home users.  That means that at least one out of every 10 of
> your customers will be infected with something.  So you'll have
> worm-type traffic from day one.  If you can put a number on what
> percentage of your customers would actually be roaming and need a
> non-changing IP address, you could use something like IP Mobility to
> cater to them, while keeping your base stations each in their own
> subnet/VLAN.  It's certainly safer.  To think what would happen to a
> wireless network with 10,000 users in one broadcast domain the next time
> a Nimda/slammer/etc hits makes me shudder...
> 
> 
> Chuck
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Vincent De Keyzer [mailto:vincent at dekeyzer.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2005 11:41 AM
> To: 'Tim Durack'
> Cc: cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net; Church, Chuck
> Subject: RE: [c-nsp] Switch recommendation
> 
> Well, OK, I see your point - and I got the same question off-list too,
> so
> here is the situation:
> 
> This is for a (pre-)Wimax service. We need to cover the whole city with
> 100
> base stations, with up to 200 users per BS - that's what gives the
> 20,000
> figure.
> 
> The L2 domain has to spread over the whole city, because a user might
> roam
> across BSs, and he should be able to continue working without renewing
> his
> IP address (we made a test on a tramway recently, and it worked fine
> over a
> journey of several kilometers).
> 
> But indeed we will slice this into several flat L2 networks, just to
> limit
> the size of the broadcast domain.
> 
> Still, the switches close to the default gateways will need to know all
> these MAC addresses (even if in separate VLANs).
> 
> Vincent
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: cisco-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net [mailto:cisco-nsp-
> > bounces at puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Tim Durack
> > Sent: mercredi 9 novembre 2005 17:15
> > To: Vincent De Keyzer
> > Cc: cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net; Church, Chuck
> > Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Switch recommendation
> >
> > I think what Chuck is trying to say is: How big is your L2 broadcast
> > domain!!??
> >
> > I know we had severe pain when we were running large, flat L2 domains
> > in the 1000+ MAC range. I shudder to think what 10,000+ would be like.
> >
> > But maybe your environment is much more controlled...
> >
> > Tim:>
> >
> > On 11/9/05, Vincent De Keyzer <vincent at dekeyzer.net> wrote:
> > > A handful. Today 2, tomorrow maybe 10?
> > >
> > > Vincent
> > >
> > > > How many VLANs?   (Please don't say '1')...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Chuck Church
> > > > Lead Design Engineer
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: cisco-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net
> > > > [mailto:cisco-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Vincent De
> > > > Keyzer
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2005 7:19 AM
> > > > To: cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
> > > > Subject: [c-nsp] Switch recommendation
> > > >
> > > > Hello,
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I have the following requirements for a switch :
> > > >
> > > > *     ability to handle over 20,000 MAC addresses
> > > > *     a few GigE ports (1 now, maybe 4 later)
> > > > *     a few FE ports (6 now, maybe 12 or 16 later)
> > > > *     no layer 3 required
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I have the feeling that those requirements are somewhat unusual -
> a
> > few
> > > > ports vs. a large number of MAC addresses.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Is the 4503 a good choice for those requirements? What cards
> should I
> > > > stick
> > > > in there?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Is there anything cheaper that would do the job?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Vincent
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
> > > > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
> > > > archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
> > > > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
> > > > archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
> > > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
> > > archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
> > >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
> > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
> > archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
> archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/

_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/