Overloaded switch...

[multiband8303]

We have several power connect switches (Dell) all pointing to our multilayer switch (an extreme) that does our NAT and how the VLANs are designated that each dell switch is just aggregated into one large VLAN and then pointed back at the extreme which then seperates out each and every VLAN and routes the traffic where it needs to go.

One of my dell switches is just completely overloaded - every port taken, and traffic is insane, plus its a single point of failure

I plan on putting another switch in and off setting the load, should I Just do the same and trunk everything on this new switch (its another dell switch) and point it back to the same VLAN as it is on the previous switch? or create a whole new VLAN? What would best practice be?

 

[spidey07]

Best practice would be for each wiring closet to be it's own VLAN, and then a ROUTED link to your multilayer/core switch.

With all that traffic it is also possible you have a bridging loop going on or a broadcast/packet storm. Time to break out a sniffer and see what is going on.

 

[multiband8303]

We only got one closet

This was done before my time here we have 5 user vlans....

I know its dumb to rationalize by eliminating a single point of failure, when we still have the single physical break of connection, but at least its an effort to show towards our clients.

 

[multiband8303]

...is it stupid to have 5 User vlans alone for a single call center environment with only 120 computers?

Or should I leave this intact?

 

[jlazzaro]

depends on the environment and your needs. are you doing any filtering between vlans? do you have any special requirements that would warrent that much segregation?

going straight numbers, 5 is a little much for only 120 clients. hell, we have ~15 for 3000+ clients. 1 vlan per switch is going a little overboard...

 

[jonmcc33]

Originally posted by: jlazzaro
depends on the environment and your needs. are you doing any filtering between vlans? do you have any special requirements that would warrent that much segregation?

going straight numbers, 5 is a little much for only 120 clients. hell, we have ~15 for 3000+ clients. 1 vlan per switch is going a little overboard...

I agree. Some network engineers tend to go nuts with their own opinion on how a network should be when I always believe in keeping it simple.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: jonmcc33

Originally posted by: jlazzaro
depends on the environment and your needs. are you doing any filtering between vlans? do you have any special requirements that would warrent that much segregation?

going straight numbers, 5 is a little much for only 120 clients. hell, we have ~15 for 3000+ clients. 1 vlan per switch is going a little overboard...

I agree. Some network engineers tend to go nuts with their own opinion on how a network should be when I always believe in keeping it simple.

Keep it simple is always good.

Restricting layer2 networks/spanning-tree to failure domains/single closet and separating them is just a tried and true good idea.

120 clients and a single closet?

One vlan for clients, one for servers and a few others for internet/firewall/WAN stuffs.

My tried and true designs are 192 hosts per subnet (4 switches) with a class C mask and two routed links to distribution or collapsed core depending on need.

Even the largest of networks in fortune 100 companies are frequently brought down by poor design. I've seen it at least a few dozen times.

 

[multiband8303]

What's a good tool for packet sniffing?

Well it create a whole bunch of false positives on my reporting utilities (we use Danika and Whats up gold)

 

[jlazzaro]

Wireshark

your reporting utilities shouldnt even notice it. remember, if you're hooking it up to a switch you need to create a SPAN port to mirror the ingress / egress traffic.