peter_ophoven
asked on
Cisco Catalyst 500 Series - Segmenting VLAN and managing traffic
Hello,
I am attempting to implement a Cisco Catalyst 500 series switch. I was under the impression that I could separate each port into its own VLAN. These VLAN's would be able to be managed down to the speed or bandwidth of the throughput.
I have two networks that are connected to the same T-1 each with their own assignable public IP address.
I was hoping to keep one VLAN at approximately 256 k / 256 k or 1/4 of the T-1 and leave the remainder of the T-1 data to a separate and more robust network.
After discussing this option with CDW's service team they assured me this would be possible with this switch.
It seems after an extensive investigation that I am only able to either control the Duplex (Full, Half, auto) or the actual port speed (10, 100) or I could setup an etherport thereby creating a virtual GIG port by using more than one 10/100 port.
This isn't what I had in mind, but maybe I am perceiving it differently than it was originally explained to me.
Thank you for your assistance.
You guys are the best! I have always found my answers from you.
Pete Ophoven
Network Administrator
Seattle, WA
I am attempting to implement a Cisco Catalyst 500 series switch. I was under the impression that I could separate each port into its own VLAN. These VLAN's would be able to be managed down to the speed or bandwidth of the throughput.
I have two networks that are connected to the same T-1 each with their own assignable public IP address.
I was hoping to keep one VLAN at approximately 256 k / 256 k or 1/4 of the T-1 and leave the remainder of the T-1 data to a separate and more robust network.
After discussing this option with CDW's service team they assured me this would be possible with this switch.
It seems after an extensive investigation that I am only able to either control the Duplex (Full, Half, auto) or the actual port speed (10, 100) or I could setup an etherport thereby creating a virtual GIG port by using more than one 10/100 port.
This isn't what I had in mind, but maybe I am perceiving it differently than it was originally explained to me.
Thank you for your assistance.
You guys are the best! I have always found my answers from you.
Pete Ophoven
Network Administrator
Seattle, WA
What they are probably thinking is for the switch to maybe mark the packet headers with QoS (DSCP/ToS) information. After which the packets can then be policed with little or no overhead at your router and achive the desired result.
SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
ASKER CERTIFIED SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
ASKER
All comments are informative but also confusing to me.
The design is one in which a CSU/DSU T-1 termination device (Edgelink 300 - installed by the data provider) providing a single ethernet port for data bandwidth. In the beginning the data was providing internet to one office. Now it is split up into two offices (and potentially three if this architecture works) all of which for security purposes must be kept separate from each other (which is the purpose of a VLAN).
It seemed that plugging the Edgelink 300 T-1 Termination Device as the carrier for internet to the Cisco 500 series and then plug two sepate offices into this device will allow me to separate the offices. Additionally though, I want to control the bandwidth to the separate offices (256 K 4 channels or 1/3 of the available data on one VLAN and the remaining on the second).
Each VLAN would then be configured by the router in each office (SonicWall 170) and (Cisco / Linksys WRV54 G) with its own assignable IP address.
I want to be able to control the bandwidth to each VLAN.
It doesn't seem like this Switch is the place to do that.
It sounds more likely that I need a higher end router to police the traffice above the switch because this switch doesn't do what I need it to.
The design is one in which a CSU/DSU T-1 termination device (Edgelink 300 - installed by the data provider) providing a single ethernet port for data bandwidth. In the beginning the data was providing internet to one office. Now it is split up into two offices (and potentially three if this architecture works) all of which for security purposes must be kept separate from each other (which is the purpose of a VLAN).
It seemed that plugging the Edgelink 300 T-1 Termination Device as the carrier for internet to the Cisco 500 series and then plug two sepate offices into this device will allow me to separate the offices. Additionally though, I want to control the bandwidth to the separate offices (256 K 4 channels or 1/3 of the available data on one VLAN and the remaining on the second).
Each VLAN would then be configured by the router in each office (SonicWall 170) and (Cisco / Linksys WRV54 G) with its own assignable IP address.
I want to be able to control the bandwidth to each VLAN.
It doesn't seem like this Switch is the place to do that.
It sounds more likely that I need a higher end router to police the traffice above the switch because this switch doesn't do what I need it to.