5412 routing

[Adam Jongewaard]

Okay, here's the scenario:

I am replacing a bunch of individual layer 3 switches with a 5412 core and then have a few edge switches from there.

In addition to the edge switches we also have a cisco 4500 router that connects our remote offices to the main office via frame-relay/ptp T1s. Not only does it do the routing for those T1s but it is also defined as the default gateway and routes all outgoing internet connections through our proxy.

My question is this... can I make the 5412 take over as the gateway and perform the routing through the proxy since I am going to want to do some routing on the switch anyhow for a considerably complicated vlan infrastructure? My reason for doing this is that the eth interface on the router is only a 10M connection and I would be better served by not having all traffic run through it due to that bottleneck.

Obviously it will still do the routing for my T1s till I convert them to ethernet.

Thoughts?

Thanks in advance for any advice.

[Manfred M.]

Hi!

I did exactly what you want to do - in addition we hat another 54xx Switch and implemented the VRRP for the first time.

YES - this works very well - one important question is (of course) if there are only static routes on your Cisco 4500 or if dynamic routing is in place! (Cisco networker often use EIGRP...). You should check the Cisco actual routing table (show ip route) to see the routings. In our case we had only a few dynamic routes which we replaced by static routes. in addition we wanted to be able to manage the routes (the former Cisco gateway could only be managed by the provider...).

As far as I can say the 54xx does a very good job! With static routes and VR (Virtual Router) active you must configure the static routes on both 54xx.

But take care - for VRRP you will need the Premium License...

But even without VRRP this will work.

The only thing I do not completely understand is, that you want to replace the C4500 L3 Switch which is comparable with the 54xx. Mayby it's the lifetime warranty by HP... or a HP TradeIn opportunity?
Or missing/expensive GbE Uplink Ports (as you are writing that there is only a 10Mbit Uplink...)

I personally think, that your network will be easier to manage with only one (or eventually a secondary backup 54xx) router which does all the routing at a single point for you!
I would also asume a performance benefit when moveing the routing to the new core!

The only thing I want to warn you: You will have to understand your routings completely!

Good routing!
Manfred, Innsbruck, Austria

[Adam Jongewaard]

Thanks for your reponse, here is the output from show ip route on the cisco.

host# show ip route
Codes: C - connected, S - static, I - IGRP, R - RIP, M - mobile, B - BGP
D - EIGRP, EX - EIGRP external, O - OSPF, IA - OSPF inter area
N1 - OSPF NSSA external type 1, N2 - OSPF NSSA external type 2
E1 - OSPF external type 1, E2 - OSPF external type 2, E - EGP
i - IS-IS, L1 - IS-IS level-1, L2 - IS-IS level-2, * - candidate default
U - per-user static route, o - ODR

Gateway of last resort is 192.168.0.1 to network 0.0.0.0

R 192.168.4.0/24 [120/1] via 192.168.254.14, 00:00:01, Serial3
R 192.168.5.0/24 [120/1] via 192.168.254.18, 00:00:07, Serial4
R 192.168.6.0/24 [120/1] via 192.168.254.22, 00:00:06, Serial5
R 192.168.7.0/24 [120/1] via 192.168.254.26, 00:00:19, Serial6
C 192.168.0.0/24 is directly connected, Ethernet0
192.168.254.0/24 is variably subnetted, 10 subnets, 2 masks
C 192.168.254.22/32 is directly connected, Serial5
C 192.168.254.20/30 is directly connected, Serial5
C 192.168.254.18/32 is directly connected, Serial4
C 192.168.254.16/30 is directly connected, Serial4
C 192.168.254.26/32 is directly connected, Serial6
C 192.168.254.24/30 is directly connected, Serial6
C 192.168.254.4/30 is directly connected, Serial1
C 192.168.254.0/30 is directly connected, Serial0.1
C 192.168.254.12/30 is directly connected, Serial3
C 192.168.254.8/30 is directly connected, Serial2.1
R 192.168.1.0/24 [120/1] via 192.168.254.2, 00:00:17, Serial0.1
R 192.168.2.0/24 [120/1] via 192.168.254.6, 00:00:03, Serial1
XXX.XXX.138.0/28 is subnetted, 1 subnets
S XXX.XXX.138.64 [1/0] via 192.168.0.15
R 192.168.3.0/24 [120/1] via 192.168.254.10, 00:00:20, Serial2.1
S* 0.0.0.0/0 [1/0] via 192.168.0.1

From what I see there is no dynamic routing on here. All of the 192.168.254.x routes are all serial based instead of eth obviously.

I should clarify that the Cisco 4500 is a router and our 5412 is the switch so I am technically changing hardware but with the procurve including some routing capabilities I was hoping to eliminate the cisco as much as possible. It creates a nasty rat's nest in the back of my switch rack.

So, to continue... Will I need VRRP? All the routes on the cisco are RIP and I can do RIP without the premium license on the 54xx correct?

The reason we're wanting to replace the 4500 router is that #1 it's super old and #2 hopefully going to be overkill in the very very near future. We're in the process of migrating all our existing T1s to ethernet circuits over fiber thus eliminating the need to do any type of routing from the serial based connections. I don't know if we'll be able to convert them all to fiber but I know that in any case we should be able to scale down to a smaller sized router when the time comes.

At this point I have had to mess with the cisco enough that i'm fairly certain that I am comfortable with the routes and what they are doing.

Thanks again,
Adam

[Manfred M.]

Hi!
Sorry for the late answer.

In 'modern times' C4500 is a Switch - 4500-M Router that's really long time ago... (End of Sales was May 2000; End of Service was November 2005!)

As I can see your router learned RIP Routes - they are dynamic, but can be replaced by static routes OR transferred to the 54xx - you don't need the Premium License for RIP Routing. You also don't need VRRP - that's only one of our scenarios and an an idea to make it more robust. A 'smaller' router could be also be a HP ProCurve procuct - we have good experiences with the Secure Router 7000dl Series (yes - it has Lifetime warranty...) which is also modular.

Manfred

[Adam Jongewaard]

Thanks for the response. As of last week I had figured out my problems and am back in business. I did have to take the cisco 4500 m (yeah, the old EOL piece of junk) out of the mix and allow the 54xx start doing the routing instead with the placement of a couple of static routes mixed into the dynamic ones. Everything seems to run smoothly so i'm happy for the time being.

Again, thanks for the help.

[Adam Jongewaard]

If anyone would like to see more in depth what I did just let me know and I'll be happy to share.