Timeline for Possibilities to switch between primary and backup radios between locations
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
11 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 31, 2017 at 2:27 | comment | added | Ron Maupin♦ | See this answer to a question I posed on Network Engineering Meta. Excerpt: "The line we have drawn is if the vendor of the product classifies it as at least small business and provides a paid support option for their product(s)." | |
| Jan 31, 2017 at 2:27 | comment | added | Ron Maupin♦ | Layer-2 constantly broadcasts, and you end up using expensive WAN bandwidth for layer-2 housekeeping. A single layer-3 link can carry as much traffic as a layer-2 link, more if you eliminate broadcast traffic. MikroTik does not offer optional, paid support, which is a requirement to be on-topic here. By the definition of the help center, it is a consumer-grade device. | |
| Jan 31, 2017 at 1:08 | comment | added | Ronnie Smith | @RonMaupin "You really don't want layer-2 crossing a WAN" is not true. Not at all. With respect, you've read to much and experienced too little. I bet you'd also say that you shouldn't allow IP phones to use an Internet link for transport. ...and meanwhile my customer saves $20,000/mo by dumping dedicated links. ...and why is MicroTik off topic?... | |
| Jan 30, 2017 at 18:13 | comment | added | Ron Maupin♦ | Not at all. Remember what LAN stands for: Local Area Network. Routing protocols automate the routing aspect, including your failover scenario. You only add rules where you need to, for example, between VLANs. A single LAN doesn't have that flexibility, and you don't add rules that you don't need. A layer-2 failure can take up to 50 seconds to fail over, but routing protocols can fail over in milliseconds. Layer-2 load balancing can be problematic, but simple in layer-3. | |
| Jan 30, 2017 at 18:08 | comment | added | atapaka | @RonMaupin If I understand you correctly, are you saying that geographical network grouping of devices makes more sense than logical grouping? Doesn't your suggested solution create more rules, more complex configurations and thus more security concerns? | |
| Jan 30, 2017 at 18:06 | comment | added | Ron Maupin♦ | @leosenko, that is simply not true. We run phones over thousands of different sites, each site with its own layer-3 networks. The old way of doing things is to have a single network, but it is very limiting. That is why we moved away from one LAN to multiple LANs connected by layer-3. It simplifies things, and adds a lot of flexibility. You are artificially limiting yourself by not moving to current practices. A business should be prepared to grow 10x, and you simply cannot do that with layer-2. | |
| Jan 30, 2017 at 18:01 | comment | added | atapaka | Let me give an example: SIP phones are in both locations,for L3 with routing separation,I would need to have separate networks for site A (say the main site with internet connectivity) and site B, although the devices should logically be in the same network (again I am focusing on logical network topology not geographical) while now they are logically in a single network. The same is for certain other devices that should be in the same network logically but due to routing the networks need to be different and there have to be routing roules,this seems more complex and more prone to error. | |
| Jan 30, 2017 at 17:41 | comment | added | rnxrx | Actually running a network with appropriate L3 segmentation is much simpler than trying to bridge dozens of VLAN's over redundant paths. One of the big steps forward in the history of networking was moving -away- from the topology you're describing. If I had to do L2 extension in the manner you're describing I'd probably look at an overlay topology - so build a redundant L3 network over the radios and then use something like L2TP or OTV (or VXLAN if you can get some different hardware) to encapsulate and bridge the packets. | |
| Jan 30, 2017 at 17:03 | comment | added | Ron Maupin♦ | It is actually a step forward into the present. You really don't want layer-2 crossing a WAN. All layer-2 broadcasts must cross the WAN. This can really exacerbate any layer-2 problems. Suddenly, both sites are down in a broadcast storm. We live in a layer-3 world, and there is no real reason that everything needs to be on the same layer-2 domain. | |
| Jan 30, 2017 at 17:01 | comment | added | atapaka | Yes, but that is the first option I wrote about and this requires removal of shared vlans between the sites. I see this as a step backward toward a more complex topology. | |
| Jan 30, 2017 at 14:34 | history | answered | Ron Maupin♦ | CC BY-SA 3.0 |