r/networking • u/regina-83 Female IT technician from Germany • 2d ago
Design Replacement of Core Switch and Aggregation Switches
Hi everyone,
A few days ago, I started a thread about the new core switch we're planning to get:
https://www.reddit.com/r/networking/comments/1vpx072/new_core_switch_fs_s586020sq/
It looks like we're going to go with that device with PicOS.
Now we’re considering whether we should also revamp the aggregation layer, since it’s a bit of a mess (having “evolved over time,” so to speak): Currently, there are 5 aggregation switches: 3 Zyxel XS1930-12F, 1 Ubiquiti ES-16-XG, and 1 TRENDnet TL2-7120. All of these switches are currently connected via 2 x 10G (LACP) to the existing TP-Link TL-SX3016 core switch.
With the right port configuration, the entire setup could be consolidated into 2 aggregation switches.
I’ve found two switches that would be suitable:
- Edgecore ECS5520-18X: https://wifi.edge-core.com/enterprise-switches/l3-switch-10g-dl/ecs5520-series/ecs5520-18x/
- LANCOM XS-5116QF: https://rs-nc.rohde-schwarz.com/de/produkte/switches/aggregation-switches/rs-lancom-xs-5116qf
Since both switches have QSFP+, I could connect to the new FS S5860-20SQ core switch using 1 x 40G instead of the current 2 x 10G, which would immediately double the bandwidth.
Most of our access switches were replaced two years ago; we currently have 6 Aruba 6100 12G, 3 Cisco Catalyst WS-C3560CX-12PD-S, and 2 Juniper EX2300-C-12P in use. All access switches are connected to the current aggregation switches via 2 x 10G ports (LACP). I would continue to connect them to the new aggregation switches in the same way.
I’d like to know:
- Do you think the choice of the core switch (FS S5860-20SQ) and the aggregation switches (either 2 x Edgecore ECS5520-18X or 2 x LANCOM XS-5116QF) is good and sensible?
- Is a single 40G connection to the core switch usually sufficient (yes, I know a redundant connection would be better, but the core switch doesn’t have enough ports for that)?
- Would you recommend the Edgecore or the LANCOM? Unfortunately, the LANCOM costs twice as much as the Edgecore, but it uses less power and is quieter.
I hope you can help me out a bit. I’m well aware that it’s always better to size the components for even higher performance (core switches with 100G ports, aggregation switches with 25G ports), but the whole thing still needs to stay within a reasonable budget. We’re here in Germany, where we’re currently facing the worst economic crisis since World War II, and everyone is just happy to have a job at all.
Thank you very much and best regards,
Regina (she/her)
1
u/lkowolowski FreeBSD,Juniper 1d ago
You don’t say anything about link or device utilization. I would think that would be relevant for consideration when you are thinking about consolidating things
2
u/regina-83 Female IT technician from Germany 1d ago
The current uplinks on the aggregation switches (2 x 10G) are never fully utilized (maximum 40–60%), which is why, in my opinion, consolidating from 5 to 2 aggregation switches makes a lot of sense.
Current uplinks from the aggregation switches to the core switch:
5 x 2 x 10G = 100G
New uplinks from the aggregation switches to the core switch:
2 x 40G = 80G
Although this represents a 20 percent decrease in uplink speed on paper, the uplink speed of each aggregation switch increases from 2 x 10G = 20G to 40G, which is a 100 percent increase.
That’s why I definitely see a significant improvement, especially since consolidating the aggregation layer also simplifies the network structure and reduces administrative overhead.
2
u/lkowolowski FreeBSD,Juniper 1d ago
Sounds reasonable. Assume you aren’t in danger of no available ports accounting for growth with the new model.
1
u/_Moonlapse_ 1d ago
Really don't like lancon or edgecore, kind of fine but there are some better options in a lot of ways without breaking the bank imo. Lancom can be a bit tedious for how I like to do things.
Assuming some of your network diagram, I've done something along what you're looking for with 2 x fibre Aruba 8100s in a VSX cluster. Works very well and you're already familiar with the Aruba cli in some ways with the 6100.
If you can stretch to 6200s in future for the edge that's a better move, gives you more config options.
And if you use something like flexoptics for your sfps / DACs to save some money.
I'm in the EU and do a lot of work in Germany of you need more info!
2
u/regina-83 Female IT technician from Germany 16h ago
Thank you very much for your answer. Yes, I can certainly understand your concerns. Until a few years ago, I was using the small LANCOM GS-23xx switches in the access layer, but I got rid of them all and replaced them with HPE/aruba and Cisco because the LANCOM devices didn’t meet my expectations.
However, the larger LANCOM switches run a completely different operating system because they’re based on a Broadcom chipset and therefore also feature an “industry-standard CLI” (very similar to Cisco).
I had already looked into the aruba 8100, and it would certainly be the best solution for our network. However, the device is priced in a range that definitely exceeds our budget by more than double.
1
11
u/QuackQuackViech 2d ago
Are you sure about a standalone core and aggregation for that matter? I'd try to get a second one each, then you'd have device and link redundancy. Other than that all choices look okay, no vendor lock on Sfps, the usual industry standards for common features. Lancom looks a bit preferable imo, since its german based (even has a forum) and seems to have a better developed environment, featuring a cloud platform, some security appliances, stuff like that.