• Status: Solved
  • Priority: Medium
  • Security: Public
  • Views: 293
  • Last Modified:

Wireless Network Design

I have a customer who wants me to design a solution for a wireless WAN they are building. They are installing wireless equipment on top of approx. 30 radio towers with either FastEthernet or some sort of fiber handoff down to "huts" at the base of the towers. The WAN will span approx 150 miles and will form a ring. In the future other people (ISPs, companies, schools, etc.) will want to build to these towers and connect to the network. I'm going to assume a FE handoff for this design. This "interconnect" traffic will be considered "public". I am tasked with placing switches/routers in each hut to accomodate this network.

Requirements:
1. Minimum 200 MB between WAN sites
2. Redundancy
3. Ability to segment public/private traffic

Now I am considering a two switch configuration at each site. Something like two 3560-24TS switches which will cover redundancy and some flexibility with the SFPs ports. And it should have plenty of capacity with only 200 MB of site to site BW. I don't expect more than a handful of interconnects at the towers so the port count should be fine.

My concern is that I've never created a layer two network over a WAN. Is this recommended? Does spanning tree have issues at these distances? Or should I be giving each site it's own subnet and route traffic? If that's the case should I be looking at routers instead of L3 switches?
0
mmurraynet
Asked:
mmurraynet
  • 2
1 Solution
 
from_expCommented:
hi there!
your should understand what wireless solution will you use.
in case of synchronous links like Ceragons(www.ceragon.com) provide you can easyly create L2 wireless network with spanning tree or similar protocol
as for switches I would recomment 3750 series they have stack and they are better that 3560 models
if you don't need stack - you can look at 2960 series of switches  - they are pure L2 switches.

as for competitor to cisco you can take a look at Extreme X150, X250, X450a switches. We use them along with cisco and they are good enough.
one of the benefits of extreme's solution - EAPS instead of spanning tree. EAPS converges much faster
0
 
mmurraynetAuthor Commented:
exp,

Thanks for the input. For the purpose of this design we will assume the solution is similar to Ceragon's.

So you don't see any issue with creating just the two subnets/vlans (public/private) across all towers?

0
 
from_expCommented:
I would say this kind of solution allows you to create any number or vlans
but boxes themselves allow to allocate only requested bandwidth for each client
0

Featured Post

Get your Conversational Ransomware Defense e‑book

This e-book gives you an insight into the ransomware threat and reviews the fundamentals of top-notch ransomware preparedness and recovery. To help you protect yourself and your organization. The initial infection may be inevitable, so the best protection is to be fully prepared.

  • 2
Tackle projects and never again get stuck behind a technical roadblock.
Join Now