96
Figure 3-30. Connecting to remote networks with a WAN Touchdown Segment
The segment itself is a single VLAN that may be implemented on more than one switch or hub. A single segment like this has an inherent lack of redundancy. However, it can easily be improved by doubling the
segment as indicated by the dotted lines.
The Touchdown Segment model for connecting WAN routers to a LAN is a fairly common technique. It has several advantages over connecting the WAN directly to the Core of the network due to the segment
being separated from anything internal by means of routers.
First, if there is a requirement for security filtering, then this is a safer method for connecting the WAN. The remote sites may be less trustworthy than the internal network, or they may even be connections to an
information vendors site. In these cases, it is easy to offer basic security support by implementing filtering on the two routers that connect the Touchdown segment or segments to the main network.
Second, WAN links are inherently less reliable than LAN links. It may be desirable to protect the internal network from the effects of unstable links by using these routers as a sort of buffer zone. One of the
problems with using a dynamic routing protocol is that flapping links cause all other routers in the area to repeatedly update their routing tables to reflect each change of state. One way to protect against this
updating is by using the two routers that connect to the Core as a transition point in the routing protocol. You could run a different routing protocol on the Touchdown segments than you do in the Core, or you
could use Border Gateway Protocol BGP, another routing protocol on these routers to separate the Touchdown segments routing protocol from the internal networks routing protocol. BGP will be discussed
in
Chapter 6 .
A third advantage to using Touchdown Segments this way is that it provides an easy expansion method for better scaling. If the Touchdown Segments become congested, building additional segments in the same
pattern is relatively easy. If you were connecting each WAN router as a separate Distribution Area, then you would have to think very carefully about its connections to the Core each time. However, with
Touchdown Segments, it is much more straightforward to expand the architectural model.
3.7.5 General Comments on Large-Scale Topology
Throughout all of these examples, I have assumed considerable symmetry in the large-scale topology. Although I havent made a point of discussing this topic until now, it is actually an important feature of a
good design. Its important to decide on a global strategy for the network and then follow it. Combining different types of designs doesnt work well.
97
For example, if your network is large enough to require using routers at the Distribution Level, then all Distribution Areas should have routers. It is certainly reasonable to have a migration plan to do this one
area at a time, but this phase is transitional. In the target design, the network should follow consistent rules.
There will always be portions of the network that need to be treated as exceptions. It is generally a good idea to devise a standard method for dealing with exceptions, as I did with the remote sites considered in
the previous section. If a few special VLANs require filtering, then they should all be treated with the same technique.
A theme that will repeat throughout this book is simplicity of concept. The benchmark for the appropriate level of simplicity is that an engineer familiar with the network in general should be able to troubleshoot
problems on the network without documentation. This rule may sound arbitrary, but any engineer who has been awakened to diagnose network problems over the phone in the middle of the night will immediately
recognize its value.
Another key advantage to this level of simplicity is that it allows new staff to learn the system quickly. Building a network that only one genius can understand is a terrible mistake. Sooner or later this genius
will grow tired of taking trouble calls and will want to train a successor. Furthermore, a simple network design can also be handed over easily to relatively junior operations staff to manage. This feature has
obvious advantages for maintainability, and maintainability is an important key to reliability.
98
Chapter 4. Local Area Network Technologies
This chapter focuses on the selection of appropriate LAN technologies for a network. Many options are available. At the more traditional end of the LAN technology spectrum, we have various flavors of
Ethernet and Token Ring. Competing with these technologies are some very interesting modern alternatives such as ATM and wireless networking. Each of these different technologies has its strengths
and weaknesses. Some are strikingly effective in certain situations, while awkward and difficult in others.
4.1 Selecting Appropriate LAN Technology
You should consider four main factors when selecting a LAN technology:
•
Cost efficiency
•
Installed base
•
Maintainability
•
Performance
4.1.1 Cost Efficiency
One of my central assumptions throughout this book is that the network is built for some business reason. It may not directly involve making money, but there must be some benefit to having the network that
justifies the expense of building it. Clearly, the benefit is never infinite, so as network designers, we have a responsibility to build a network that meets the requirements for the lowest possible cost.
This problem is particularly important in the selection of network technologies. The classic example is that Token Ring cards for PCs are more expensive than the equivalent Ethernet cards. This fact alone has
explained why so many organizations have undergone expensive changes in their LAN infrastructure to use more cost-effective options. As discussed previously, Token Ring has many performance benefits over
Ethernet. But if the cost of Ethernet is low enough and the cost of Token Ring is high enough, then you can engineer around the performance benefits to build an Ethernet network that is at least as good as Token
Ring, but less expensive. Or, you may decide to spend more money on Token Ring and get better performance.
Similarly, you could get a high-performance network by running Gigabit Ethernet to every desk. But the cost of doing this would be orders of magnitude higher than the same network using Fast Ethernet. There
may still be valid business reasons for wanting to build the faster network. However, it is more likely that a hybrid of the two approaches would meet all of the business requirements with a much more attractive
budget.
In general, faster technology is more expensive. This is not universally true, however. Fast Ethernet equipment has become nearly ubiquitous, making the cost of building a Fast Ethernet network similar to
the cost of building a regular 10Mbps Ethernet. This is even truer of the 4Mbps and 16Mbps Token Ring— it is now difficult to find Token Ring equipment that doesnt support both standards.
The other important costperformance decision in both Ethernet- and Token Ring-based networks is the granularity of shared and switched segments. The finest granularity network has a switch port for every
end device, which has significant performance benefits—particularly because it allows full-duplex operation. However, switch ports are generally more expensive than hub ports. A more cost-effective
solution might involve a hybrid network in which some important end devices are directly attached to switch ports, while others are grouped in small numbers on hubs.
Another important economy involves the use of unmanageable Access devices. Small workgroup hubs and switches with no management capabilities are available for remarkably low prices. In the same vein, it is
