Aruba & ProVision-based
1745791 Members
3889 Online
108722 Solutions
New Discussion

E3800 Ring vs Mesh

 
SOLVED
Go to solution
Spravtek
Occasional Advisor

E3800 Ring vs Mesh

Hello,

 

So I understand the difference between ring vs mesh, but still have some questions which I can't immediately find answers for.

 

Besides the "bandwidth" increase of the mesh setup (e.g.: 4 cables vs 2 for 2 switches) are there any other benefits?

 

Is it possible to use the mesh configuration (setting ports in mesh) if connecting the switches in a ring stack? Or does it just make 1 virtual switch which you can configure like a normal switch, where you need to configure things like MSTP and so on like the other switches in the network (no mesh domain)?

 

Thanks for clearing things up for me :)

7 REPLIES 7
Arimo
Respected Contributor

Re: E3800 Ring vs Mesh

Hi

 

Mesh is actually intended for connections between multiple switches. If you just need increased bandwidth between two switches, you can configure a trunk just as well. The main benefit of meshing environment is indeed increased bandwidth.

 

Nope, mesh ports can connect only to mesh ports. Note that meshing and IRF are two completely different things. IRF creates one virtual switch out of two or more physical switches, you configure them from one interface. Meshign doesn't have this kind of functionality at all, the devices are still individual switches without any centralized management.


HTH,

Arimo
HPE Networking Engineer
Spravtek
Occasional Advisor

Re: E3800 Ring vs Mesh

Meshing doesn't create a virtual switch?

 

Then the documentation is either wrong or I'm misreading it :)

http://bizsupport2.austin.hp.com/bc/docs/support/SupportManual/c03018145/c03018145.pdf

http://h30507.www3.hp.com/t5/HP-Networking/3-Ways-to-Build-Your-Network-A-Primer-on-Network-Switching/ba-p/100975

 

I wasn't talking about IRF either ... I was trying to make sense on connecting the E3800 in ring topology (2 cables in the stacking module) vs mesh topology (4 cables in the stacking module)

 

Sorry if I was being unclear :)

showneek
Respected Contributor

Re: E3800 Ring vs Mesh

Hi,

 

3800 with FlexChassis mesh stacking creates virtual switch like IRF. Arimo probably means the older HP switch meshing which is L2 technology similar to spanning tree.

 

The advantages of mesh topology is higher performance. With more switches in mesh topology, you have distance from one switch to another as single hop so you always go shortest path from source to destination. If one switch fail, there is no performance impact on other members because it is still mesh (not a chain in case of failure in ring topology).

 

BR,

Jan

 

 

Spravtek
Occasional Advisor

Re: E3800 Ring vs Mesh

Thanks showneek ... 

 

Yeah ... I get that ... Mesh is better in some circumstances ...

 

But am I right in thinking that I can't configure ports in/as mesh if I don't connect the stack modules as mesh but rather as ring? It would be logical to think so, just making sure :)

 

thanks again

Richard Litchfield
Respected Contributor
Solution

Re: E3800 Ring vs Mesh

The mesh ports on the 3800 are the dedicated 40Gb ports in the special module installed at the rear of the switch. If you don't have them, you can't do a mesh/stack.

 

The new mesh/stack feature enabled by the dedicated module with 4 x 40Gb ports is similar in outcome to IRF (in the Comware/A-Series/H3C switches): you end up with a single virtual switch, MLAGs across multiple switches, shared tables for L2 and L3, etc. It has no relation to the older L2 mesh technology that the ProCurve switches with ProVision ASICs supported.

 

The 40Gb ports will self-detect and sort out the appropriate topology. Just plug them in and watch it work! I can't recall if there is any config possible on the 40Gb ports anyway?

Andreaf
New Member

Re: E3800 Ring vs Mesh

Hi,

sorry to pop in this thread so late, but it seemed the right place to ask my questions about , IRF, stacking and Network Mesh.

 

First of all it is not clear to me if  IRF and stacking on the E3800 are mutally exclusive.

Does the 3800 support only the stacking or I can choose to configure IRF instead?

 

I see that the Network mesh supported in HP switches is citated as an old techology, similar to spanning tree.

 

I was actually interested in this tecnology as it seem lighter  than IRF or Stacking (does not require extra interfaces and cabling).

Can anyone point me to some documentation about it?

Is HP not supporting it anymore, what are the problems with it?

 

Thanks.

 

showneek
Respected Contributor

Re: E3800 Ring vs Mesh

Hi Andreaf,

 

what do you want to achieve in your network. There are lot of terms related to stacking I see which I think are not clear so try to explain.

 

Stacking (general)... Basic stacking technology, lot of devices, doesnt create virtual switch, only single management purposes

 

IRF (Intelligent Resilient Framework)... Advanced proprietary stacking, creates virtual device, single logical unit from network devices and protocols (L2, L3) point of view, ex-H3C technology, supported on Comware series switches

 

FlexMeshing... Advanced proprietary stacking, very similar to IRF, for now supported only on 3800 switch series (ProVision, ex-ProCurve successor)

 

HP Meshing... Older proprietary L2 technology similar to solve redundancy like spanning tree but in little different ways than stp standard.

 

I am not sure what are your goals. Generaly if you want to achieve some level of redundancy, the easier way is go with advanced stacking (IRF or FlexMeshing). These creates single logical device and you dont have to need configure another protocols such as STP, VRRP. Basic and simple link aggregation accross stack members can solve the redundancy.

 

Hope this was helpfull to you.

 

BR,

Jan