Press "Enter" to skip to content

Why have a single, "core", router

Last updated on December 29, 2018

        quick bit of context so my question makes sense:
I've been asked to plan out some subnets and routing for a new IP range we've just been allocated. The range will be used to customer's equipment (on IPs allocated out of this range) to peering providers. </context> Every routing example I've seen appears to revolve around one central "Core" router, which connects to all the other networks and routers. This would leave me with a setup looking something like this Network diagram number 1 Full diagram at http://www.gliffy.com/go/publish/6360724 To me, this would seem to have a few disadvantages, namely a single point of failure, and wasting 2 IPs for each additional connection. That lead me to come up with this: Network diagram number 2 Full diagram at http://www.gliffy.com/go/publish/6360825 In theory, this makes better use of the IP ranges, and has fewer single points of failure. Can anybody suggest why the first set-up seems preferable, even with it's seemingly obvious faults? Thanks!

Be First to Comment

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: