Is this topology "real world"?

B

Bedrock1977

n00b
Joined
Dec 20, 2010
Messages
61
Here is a topology I found for a CCIE lab. Is this "real world"? I'm trying to wrap my head around the fact that the router interfaces shown are connected to two 3550 switches and assigned to the assigned vlans. The vlans are in their own subnet which I understand. Why might I want to set a lab up this way? If i'm setting on R1 in vlan 120 and wanted to ping E1/0 on R7 which is in vlan 735, wouldn't the pings still go through since they would have to travel over the frame relay network using the routing protocols?

Hope my questions make sense!

351biig.jpg
 
Doubt you will see much frame relay and ISDN in the real world today :)
 
That's an older CCIE topology. To answer your question, yes, if you were to ping R7's e1/0 from R1, you'd likely traverse the FR link between R1 and R7. This isn't guaranteed though, it depends on the configuration of the routing protocols (which should determine the best path by the cost to reach a network).

Learn the basics before you start looking at stuff like this.
 
Sure. Well as far as I know ISDN has been taken out of the CCNA exam but frame relay has not.

After looking at this diagram for quite some time, I've come to the conclusion that the routers without a physical link to a frame relay network, are connected together with an Ethernet connection and stuck in a vlan group. It appears their intention was to "pull-in" those routers floating around on their own by connecting them with an Ethernet cable.

who knows, maybe if I walk away again, I will see something totally different! :)
 
Honestly, I'm not understanding what you're saying.

The intention for this topology is to have experience with different types of handoffs, various routing protocols, and complexity. The more stuff you add, the more complex it gets, and a lot of people will fall to their knees. There are still some CCIEs that slip through the cracks, but this thankfully prevents most of the incompetent ones from obtaining one.

Proper architecture is not really something that's tested on the CCIE R&S. That's more of a CCA thing. It sucks because there are plenty of non-CCIE architects I work with that have previously told CCIEs to fuck off, with good reason. Knowing protocols in and out does not automatically make you a world class network architect.
 
All I am trying to do here is create a CCNA lab topology that I can cable once and only once. I do most of my studying using the rack remotely. So instead of reaching over to plug and unplug serial cables, I want to change DLCI mappings to connect the routers on the WAN. If I need to connect routers on a LAN, I want to be able to add or delete router interfaces from a certain vlan. In a sense, all the routers will run through a 2520 router I have configured as a frame-relay switch. I have two 2950 switches trunked together for each of the router ethernet interfaces to plug into. I just added a 1721 router with a fast ethernet interface to give me inter-vlan routing capabilities.

Needless-to-say I haven't been able to come up with a topology that works. No one has been able to offer help in the past to create one, so i resort to finding topology examples online and then asking questions about certain things.
 
Dude, you're just working on CCNA labs. There is no need to build out anything nearly as complicated as that old CCIE lab topology from CBTNuggets above.

Start small and get the basics down then you'll have no problem coming up with your own topology that meets your needs and is achievable with the hardware you have on hand. Either that or skip CCNA for now and do CCDA instead. At least then you'll learn the basics of planning LAN/WAN design without the extra emphasis on actually configuring the switches/routers.

Most of CCNA you can do with a couple devices stacked on your desk and a console cable after all.
 
i can't just leave this be, it's killing me..... the FR link between R1 and R7 needs changed to /30 ....aaarrrgggh.....
 
you know, waste a whole /24 on a point to point link. could address it with a 10.x.x.x/30 for all i care. as is it's wasting address space. but whatever.

any way you want to look at it is being presumptuous since we don't know the use of the topology/lab. can the OP give any more background info or details?
 
It's a lab topology so I'll take logical addressing (R1=.1, R2 =.2, R6=.6, etc) over efficient addressing any day. I use /24s on most of my labs so I can figure things out at a glance.

In the real world, I completely agree. I'm a big fan of /31s on p2p links.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top