<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>topic Re: network design in Switches, Hubs, and Modems</title>
    <link>https://community.hpe.com/t5/switches-hubs-and-modems/network-design/m-p/5203173#M29161</link>
    <description>thanks for the help</description>
    <pubDate>Wed, 14 Oct 2009 16:28:50 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>datasmart</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2009-10-14T16:28:50Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>network design</title>
      <link>https://community.hpe.com/t5/switches-hubs-and-modems/network-design/m-p/5203167#M29155</link>
      <description>&lt;!--!*#--&gt;good Morning\Afternoon networking gurus&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;i am trying to build in some redundancy based in the nw design attached.&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;please note that i have only one 5400zl chassis in the core.&lt;BR /&gt;Any suggestions?&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;Thank you all&lt;BR /&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 08 Oct 2009 18:31:55 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.hpe.com/t5/switches-hubs-and-modems/network-design/m-p/5203167#M29155</guid>
      <dc:creator>datasmart</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2009-10-08T18:31:55Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: network design</title>
      <link>https://community.hpe.com/t5/switches-hubs-and-modems/network-design/m-p/5203168#M29156</link>
      <description>Your question is very open...&lt;BR /&gt;First suggestion would be : add another 5400&lt;BR /&gt;But I don't think thats's what you wanted to hear?&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;Question : does the 5400 does any other function in your network eg. routing?&lt;BR /&gt;If so there will be no much need for other physical paths when your router in the network is down....</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 09 Oct 2009 06:42:40 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.hpe.com/t5/switches-hubs-and-modems/network-design/m-p/5203168#M29156</guid>
      <dc:creator>Pieter 't Hart</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2009-10-09T06:42:40Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: network design</title>
      <link>https://community.hpe.com/t5/switches-hubs-and-modems/network-design/m-p/5203169#M29157</link>
      <description>hello there, the ideal purpose for the nw design will be in the future add a new 5400zl in the core, but not for now, i understand perfectly that if my only core switch goes down i have no redundancy at all.&lt;BR /&gt;I am thinking more about in path redundancy, if a mini-gb link goes down i want to my 2610 keep working with no problems with the alternate psychical path.... any ideas???, and yes the switch will have routing functions.&lt;BR /&gt;Thank you</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 09 Oct 2009 07:32:44 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.hpe.com/t5/switches-hubs-and-modems/network-design/m-p/5203169#M29157</guid>
      <dc:creator>datasmart</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2009-10-09T07:32:44Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: network design</title>
      <link>https://community.hpe.com/t5/switches-hubs-and-modems/network-design/m-p/5203170#M29158</link>
      <description>then for the bottom 2610's your drawing  allready shows a redundant link.&lt;BR /&gt;only the left and right switches need a second link, as the "stack"-connection possibly only is for management and does not do any data-traffic?</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 09 Oct 2009 07:39:20 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.hpe.com/t5/switches-hubs-and-modems/network-design/m-p/5203170#M29158</guid>
      <dc:creator>Pieter 't Hart</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2009-10-09T07:39:20Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: network design</title>
      <link>https://community.hpe.com/t5/switches-hubs-and-modems/network-design/m-p/5203171#M29159</link>
      <description>Thanks for the quick answer.&lt;BR /&gt;So stacking is not a solution, to my redundancy issue.&lt;BR /&gt;Due to the small distance between those two switchs, it is possible to create a backup uplink using a UTP cable and manage a possible lost of link in the fiber automatically.&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;One again many thanks.&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;    &lt;BR /&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 09 Oct 2009 08:25:54 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.hpe.com/t5/switches-hubs-and-modems/network-design/m-p/5203171#M29159</guid>
      <dc:creator>datasmart</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2009-10-09T08:25:54Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: network design</title>
      <link>https://community.hpe.com/t5/switches-hubs-and-modems/network-design/m-p/5203172#M29160</link>
      <description>Yes stacking was meant as:&lt;BR /&gt;"Stacking capability: single IP address management for a virtual stack of up to 16 switches"&lt;BR /&gt;So only for management, not comparable to cisco StackWise&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;Although once on the forum I was pointed out that from some models/firmware version on It would have more capabilities, but cant find this link at the time.</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 09 Oct 2009 08:42:14 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.hpe.com/t5/switches-hubs-and-modems/network-design/m-p/5203172#M29160</guid>
      <dc:creator>Pieter 't Hart</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2009-10-09T08:42:14Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: network design</title>
      <link>https://community.hpe.com/t5/switches-hubs-and-modems/network-design/m-p/5203173#M29161</link>
      <description>thanks for the help</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 14 Oct 2009 16:28:50 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.hpe.com/t5/switches-hubs-and-modems/network-design/m-p/5203173#M29161</guid>
      <dc:creator>datasmart</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2009-10-14T16:28:50Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

