VMware
RRTC Whiteboard Wednesday @ 7 PM CST
RRTC Whiteboard Wednesday @ 7 PM CST
#RRTC #Whiteboard #Wednesday #CST
“Rob Riker’s Tech Channel”
How’s it going everybody! Welcome to Whiteboard Wednesday where we’ll talk about certification, exam prep, lab builds, architecture review, basic and complex issues in networking and much more.
source
To see the full content, share this page by clicking one of the buttons below |
Rob, thank you for replying to my question. I have a couple clarifying questions:
1. In another video ("ENARSI Workbook Updates, Cisco OS Types, Study Prep, Inet Edge Design") you brought another design example, there were two edge routers connected to distribution switch and distribution switch connected to two Palo Alto. And you said you used HSRP between Palo Alto and edge Routers. Please correct me if I'm wrong:
a. There is no any routing protocol between PaloAlto and Edge Routers, because in case we have HSRP, we don't need routing protocol between devices to do failover.
b. On PaloAlto there is static default route configured towards HSRP virtual IP address.
c. How failover handled on edge routers? Maybe some tracking configured on Primary router which tracks some internet IP and if it's down, then it lowers HSRP priority of the Primary Router?
2. You mentioned that SVIs on distribution switch should be passive interfaces, so it won't be possible to form routing neighborship over LAN facing interfaces. Cisco also recommends it. But do you remember we discussed if routing neighborhip should be working over trunk link between distribution switches and you said that it's very popular design when there routing protocol neighborship is running over trunk link between distribution switches. But how it's possible if SVIs will be passive interfaces? Maybe in that case we need to create separate VLAN, allow it only between distribution switches, create SVI for that vlan and run routing protocol only over this VLAN between distribution switches. In that case, routing can't be formed over LAN facing interfaces. Is my assumption correct?
Rob, could you please not to incorporate SDWAN into "real life networking topology" and just create a separate topology for SDWAN? Honestly, I wanted this course to be about more "traditional" network and not SDWAN and SDAccess. It would be great if you create another topology for "real life networking" with SDWAN. So, one topology would be only for "traditional" network and another one is for SDWAN. Right now, "traditional" network is more important to me. I know, you create this course not only for me, but just wanted to express my opinion 😄 and of course, it's up to you how you want to do it.
Rob, some questions and observations regarding your labs:
1. Could you please use /30 network between network devices in the lab? I see that you're using /24. With /30 mask it will be more real.
2. I noticed that in ENARSI lab, each distribution switch has only one uplink towards Core switch. Cisco in their documentation advice to use two uplinks, so one uplink to each Core Switch.
3. Also you use ring topology in Core layer in both ENARSI and "Real life networking" topologies. Is there any reason for that? Why not to use full mesh?