- Community Home
- >
- Networking
- >
- Legacy
- >
- Switches, Hubs, Modems
- >
- 3500, Ip Routing and performances
Categories
Company
Local Language
Forums
Discussions
Forums
- Data Protection and Retention
- Entry Storage Systems
- Legacy
- Midrange and Enterprise Storage
- Storage Networking
- HPE Nimble Storage
Discussions
Discussions
Discussions
Forums
Forums
Discussions
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
- BladeSystem Infrastructure and Application Solutions
- Appliance Servers
- Alpha Servers
- BackOffice Products
- Internet Products
- HPE 9000 and HPE e3000 Servers
- Networking
- Netservers
- Secure OS Software for Linux
- Server Management (Insight Manager 7)
- Windows Server 2003
- Operating System - Tru64 Unix
- ProLiant Deployment and Provisioning
- Linux-Based Community / Regional
- Microsoft System Center Integration
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Community
Resources
Forums
Blogs
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Mark Topic as New
- Mark Topic as Read
- Float this Topic for Current User
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Printer Friendly Page
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО10-22-2008 07:46 AM
тАО10-22-2008 07:46 AM
We are interested in a couple of 3500yl to act as core in our small datacenter.
I have three question:
a) is ip routing enabled without premium license? I need only the static routing. How many static route can I have without license?
b) What about routing performances? Can I set more or less 100vlans and routing gigabit with it?
c) Is 3500 indicated to act as core switches in a network with more or less 50 servers? I'll use those switches to aggregate traffic coming from 2610 switches on top of racks.
Solved! Go to Solution.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО10-22-2008 09:05 AM
тАО10-22-2008 09:05 AM
Solutiona) is ip routing enabled without premium license? I need only the static routing. How many static route can I have without license?
a-no need premium edge license for static routing
premium edge license for
* OSPFv2
* PIM Dense mode
* PIM Sparse mode
* VRRP
* QinQ (IEEE 802.1ad)
you can create 256 static route entry on 3500 switch
b) What about routing performances? Can I set more or less 100vlans and routing gigabit with it?
b-routing performance is same switching performance for example
Routing/Switching capacity 101 Gbps and Routing table size 10000 entries
for 3500-24 switch
you can create
VLANs with at least one IP Address 512
IP addresses per system 2048 IP
2048 IPv6
IP addresses per VLAN 32
static routes 256
supported routes 10,000 (including ARP)
c) Is 3500 indicated to act as core switches in a network with more or less 50 servers? I'll use those switches to aggregate traffic coming from 2610 switches on top of racks.
c-may be but 3500-48 switch include 48 gigabit copper port and 4 sfp ports equal whit 4copper ports
this switch very good for aggregate other network switch
cenk
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО10-22-2008 10:52 AM
тАО10-22-2008 10:52 AM
Re: 3500, Ip Routing and performances
So If I'll make 100 static route between 100vlan this switch can handle it without problems?
And for the 48ports.... 48ports are too much.
I aggregate traffic from outher switch, 2port (in trunk) for each swich (on top of rack) so 24ports are equal to 24 racks...
Actually I have 3 racks only and with the 3500 24ports I can handle 12 racks. :D
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО10-23-2008 12:09 AM
тАО10-23-2008 12:09 AM
Re: 3500, Ip Routing and performances
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО10-23-2008 12:47 AM
тАО10-23-2008 12:47 AM
Re: 3500, Ip Routing and performances
you really want to have a *pair* of cores (in a campus spanning VLANs design I assume) without VRRP?
BTW, the limit of 256 static routes feels somewhat arbitrary, but seldom is a real issue because you either
a) Route between a bunch of VLANs, where all the routes are connected anyway, so no need for statics beyond the usual default and some WAN/VPN routes;
or
b) Have an actual routed core that needs to be dynamic to make any sense, so you must have the premium license anyway, and again you need statics just for the default and some WAN/VPN routes (typically redistributed into the IGP from the distribution, so the actual cores will not have *any* statics at all).
I think the 3500yl can well make sense as cores in certain designs, even routed core ones. But I wouldn't accept them in this job role without the premium license. Losing OSPF might be Ok when doing just routing between spanning VLANs, but losing VRRP is a no-no IMO. You could as well use a single core box then.
HTH,
Andre.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО10-23-2008 12:53 AM
тАО10-23-2008 12:53 AM
Re: 3500, Ip Routing and performances
a single core box will give me NO redundancy.
I have VRRP managed by firewall that will be connected to each core.
My net will be as follow:
rack1 -> access 2610 -> core1+core2 -> firewall1+firewall2 (with VRRP)
So each core is connected to each firewall and I have VRRP on it.
Each access switch is connected with 4 trunk to each core (one trunk to each core) and I have redundancy.
Right?
Any other switch?
The only thing that I don't like is the absence of stackwise...SMC cost is similiar to HP but has stacking cable so i can use just only 2 port for each access switch (2610) with no need to buy transciever.