Cisco-Layer 2 Resiliency Compared to HPs IRF Essay

Published: 2020-04-22 08:24:05
656 words
3 pages
printer Print
essay essay

Category: Ethernet

Type of paper: Essay

This essay has been submitted by a student. This is not an example of the work written by our professional essay writers.

Hey! We can write a custom essay for you.

All possible types of assignments. Written by academics

GET MY ESSAY
In order to provide speed and reliability, large and enterprise-level networks today are typically constructed in multiple layers. They are the access layer, also called the network edge layer, the aggregation or distribution layer; and the network core layer. The access layer is usually a mesh of network switches, linked to other switches in the aggregation layer, which in turn is linked to the core. This mesh type application of switches provides multiple paths for network traffic to flow. What this means is that if one link in the traffic flow or a switch goes down, traffic can continue to flow using an alternate path. This type of mesh interlinked switches uses Spanning Tree Protocol (STP) to detect and prevent loops. A loop occurs when there are multiple active paths to the same switch and this causes the system to crash. Some advantages of HPs IRF Resiliency are higher efficiency with IRFs loop-free, non-blocking architecture.

This is designed to keep all links active, enabling highly efficient, high bandwidth connectivity throughout the switching plane. Scalable performance is achieved with IRF and Link Aggregation Control Protocol (LACP). When used together, they can boost performance by bundling several parallel links between switches and servers, allowing scalable on-demand performance and capacity to support critical business applications. HPs IRF Resiliency offers faster failover in the event a network failure occurs; IRF can deliver rapid recovery and network re-convergence in fewer than 50 milliseconds”much faster than the several seconds required for STP.

The disadvantages associated with HPs IRF Resiliency are said to be poor performance because it blocks all parallel paths except the one it has selected as active. Technicians have complained that even when the network is operating normally STP actually reduces the effective bandwidth. Some people claim that the choice of which protocol to use is difficult and that there is a slow network convergence. One problem is that the re-convergence time for STP can be several seconds.

In contrast, Cisco Layer 2 Resiliency advantages are claimed to offer rapid failover without service disruption. The layer 2 is designed to streamline change management and service turn-up without WAN disruption with fewer errors. It offers a high availability through real-time recovery and resiliency at the network, device and design levels. Cisco Layer 2 Resiliency offers increased system redundancy at the platform level, network security through access layer defense, identity-based trust, pervasive security and management as well as providing device posture assessments. Operational efficiency is achieved through automated configuration, proactive diagnostics and simplified troubleshooting. This is designed to provide predictable application performance to support converged applications as well as support IP multicast for new applications.

As with HPs IRF Resiliency, there are several disadvantages associated with Cisco Layer 2 Resiliency. The router supports REP only when the router is running the metro IP access or the metro access image. You have to configure each segment port or an incorrect configuration will cause forwarding loops in networks. REP can only manage one failed port within a segment. Multiple port failures within the REP segment cause high loss of network connectivity.

Due to its simplistic manageability and scalability I would recommend HPs IRF Resiliency over Cisco Layer 2 Resiliency. Due to the limitations of Cisco Layer 2 Resiliency, HPs IRF Resiliency is a technology that will provide a network that is fully resilient, yet is also simpler to set up and manage. At the same time it uses the full capabilities and bandwidth of each switch, ensuring greater overall efficiency in networking infrastructure. HPs IRF Resiliency allows an organization to incorporate their existing switches and network with HP IRF switches to provide a seamless migration.

References
Cisco Unified WAN Services: Services, Security, Resiliency, and Intelligence Cisco. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.cisco.com/en/US/prod/collateral/routers/ps9343/solution_overview_c22-450358_ps9343_Products_White_Paper.html Resilient Services Solution for Campus Network Cisco. (n.d.). Retrieved from

Warning! This essay is not original. Get 100% unique essay within 45 seconds!

GET UNIQUE ESSAY

We can write your paper just for 11.99$

i want to copy...

This essay has been submitted by a student and contain not unique content

People also read