Network & VLAN Help

[owen1978]

I have attached a plan of my network switch layout.

 

First question is there anything that looks a bit suspect?

i.e should all the switches in the the main cab be directly plugged into the core?

or is daisy chaining ok?

 

Second question is that we are having 10 Ip cameras fitted.

I want to put them on a seperate VLAN.

 

Trying to plan it out and I got as far as....

 

Create a VLAN2 on Netgear

Assign ports 1-10 to VLAN2

Plug in cameras to those ports

Configure DHCP scope for VLAN2 on server

 

Would i need to enter routes into each of the switches?

Network.docx

[Bud180]

you shouldnt need to enter the routes into the switch no, not if they are all under the same top subnet.

 

Also - Just read your map. I would plumb them back to the core. If say your, Cisco Catalyst 3560 goes down or link to the core fails. .

 

Cisco SLM2048 and Netgear GS724TP will both lose on on connectivity.

 

See where im coming from.

Edited July 15, 2011 by Bud180

[Jamo]

I have attached a plan of my network switch layout.

 

First question is there anything that looks a bit suspect?

i.e should all the switches in the the main cab be directly plugged into the core?

or is daisy chaining ok?

 

Second question is that we are having 10 Ip cameras fitted.

I want to put them on a seperate VLAN.

 

Trying to plan it out and I got as far as....

 

Create a VLAN2 on Netgear

Assign ports 1-10 to VLAN2

Plug in cameras to those ports

Configure DHCP scope for VLAN2 on server

 

Would i need to enter routes into each of the switches?

 

Which switch are you using for your layer 3 routing?

 

The VLANS will need to exist on this switch and need to be trunked down the switches to the end of the chain if there are access ports required on switch in any but VLAN1.

[smithson83]

Firstly, I would reccoment pluggin each switch directly into the core, Daisy Chaining is not ideal as for each chain your multiplying the traffic by each port on each switch as you get further away from the core (ie any particular client, say the camera on the netgear, will potentially have to conect with each port on the two middle cisco's on a single link going back to the core and the edge switches arnt designed to handle that amount of traffic as well as a core switch is)

 

But if you are ok with this then, depending on where your server is connected (I'm assuming the core switch), will you not need to have the links from the Netgear back to the Core a member of both VLANS to carry the traffic?

[owen1978]

The Core switch has only 2 x Gig ports and one is being used by the Secondary Cab

and the other is being used by the 3560.

 

So... Im going to take the link between the SLB2048 & Netgear switch and connect the Netgear

into the 3560 as this is a layer 3 switch???

[owen1978]

So using the new topology...

I should create the VLANS on the Netgear and the 3560 correct?

[Jamo]

So using the new topology...

I should create the VLANS on the Netgear and the 3560 correct?

 

The VLANS need to exist on all the switches in your daisy chain as otherwise the traffic will get dropped if it hits a switch without VLAN2. The fibre links need to be trunks (cisco talk) or have VLAN2 tagged on the uplink ports (HP talk) all the way up to the core, which needs to have both VLANS defined and ip routing enabled.

 

You need to create a VLAN interface as VLAN2's default gateway as well as the VLAN itself on the layer 3 core switch.

 

ie :

 

On cisco:

 

enable

conf t

 

vlan 2

name blahblah

exit

int vlan 2

ip address 192.168.2.1 255.255.255.0

exit

 

Ensure that the Cisco has IP routing enabled (should have IP Routing listed in startup-config)

[owen1978]

One thing that I need clearing up in my head is that on the netgear, I have created VLAN2.

And tagged ports 12-22 as well as chaning the PVID to 2 for those ports.

 

So when a camera is plugged into port 14 it sends a DHCP request.

The router (3560) recognises that it has come from VLAN2 and then passes the request

on the correct DHCP Scope.

 

Another thing does that mean I dont have to configure an IP addresss for VLAN2 (192.168.1.1) on the netgear?

So when a packet gets sent to VLAN2 the router just sends it to the ip address (VLAN1/10.127.216.1) of the netgear

which then sorts ther traffic?

Edited July 15, 2011 by owen1978

[Jamo]

One thing that I need clearing up in my head is that on the netgear, I have created VLAN2.

And tagged ports 12-22 as well as chaning the PVID to 2 for those ports.

 

So when a camera is plugged into port 14 it sends a DHCP request.

The router (3560) recognises that it has come from VLAN2 and then passes the request

on the correct DHCP Scope.

 

Another thing does that mean I dont have to configure an IP addresss for VLAN2 (192.168.1.1) on the netgear?

So when a packet gets sent to VLAN2 the router just sends it to the ip address (VLAN1/10.127.216.1) of the netgear

which then sorts ther traffic?

 

No the netgear should be left as a layer 2 switch with no ip addresses but the management ip.

 

The ports on the netgear should be access ports in vlan 2 not tagged as tagged will turn the ports into a trunk and any access data will flow down the default vlan which will be 1 I would think on your setup.

 

The layer 2 traffic will be transferred all the way to the main core interface at which point it will be routed between the VLANS and go into VLAN1 . If you start adding more layer 3 switches you will end up with a complicated network to debug when its all daisy chained like that

[owen1978]

So just to make things clear...

 

So Tagging means creating a 'Trunk' or 'Uplink'?... so i should configure the ports 12-22 for VLAN2 as untagged?

How many links go back into the core switch from the netgear? 2 - one for each vlan?

Its currently connected using only one link - port 24 which is part of VLAN1

[Jamo]

In HP terms, when a network packet gets transferred down the wire, in a VLANned setup the tagged packets are marked as beloging to a VLAN OTHER than what is known as the native vlan for that particular trunked port. You can have more than one vlan tagged on a port, meaning it will basically allow traffic destined to that VLAN to flow down that port. You can only have one VLAN untagged on a port at a time.

 

If a port has only an untagged VLAN specified and no 'tagged' vlans then it becomes an access port and any device plugged into that port will be effectively on that VLAN. The trunk to the core basically requires all VLANs (apart from the native 'untagged' which you would normally leave as 1) to be tagged.

 

Yup you will need to set ports 12-22 as untagged for VLAN 2, then the uplinks to the core on each switch along the way will require VLAN 2 tagged on the uplink port and vlan1 left as untagged.

 

Hope that helps

[owen1978]

Slowly getting there....

 

Netgear switch looks like this now...

Ports 12-22 are sorted

Port 24 - untagged VLAN1 into core switch

Port 23 - tagged VLAN2 into core switch

[Jamo]

You can trunk both VLANs up to the core on the same port, thats the idea of trunking, basically using one port to carry both VLANs traffic. If you were to do it like you suggested you should create both of the ports 23 and 24 as untagged in the particular vlans, IE port 24 untagged vlan1 and port 23 untagged vlan2. This basically makes them both access ports in their respective vlans.

 

Are both 23 and 24 going directly to the core or are they passing through any other switches along the way?

[owen1978]

Yes, i am going to change my network layout so all switches go straight to the core switch.

 

Just thinking does it make a difference in terms of speed/priority if I have dedicated link to core

switch for each VLAN or Trunk it and let traffic for both VLANs pass use the uplink?

[Jamo]

Yes, i am going to change my network layout so all switches go straight to the core switch.

 

Just thinking does it make a difference in terms of speed/priority if I have dedicated link to core

switch for each VLAN or Trunk it and let traffic for both VLANs pass use the uplink?

 

You will get better throughput with two, but in reality it is extremely unlikely that the devices would utilize the bandwidth effectively, it is better use of resources (ports) to just use one uplink (or create a portchannel aggregated link if you wanted to combine two ports into one trunk which would be a far better use of the links and would double the effective bandwidth available).

 

I personally would just leave it as one trunk running between each device, if you haven't got devices which can stack then you won't get any redundancy from having multiple cables connected between the core and the individuals.