Is a 2948G considered a backbone? 1

[maxsterling21]

We have 2 48-port 2948G switches interconnecting all our workstations, servers and routers. Is this considered a "backbone"? Thanks in advance.

 

[ADB100]

No

 

[maxsterling21]

It's not considered a network backbone? What would be an example of one then?

 

[ADB100]

Something that forwards packets at layer-3 at an alarming rate.................

 

[jneiberger]

A "core" (backbone) device can also be layer two. Many networks run high-speed layer-two cores instead of layer three. Regardless, as ADB100 said, the 2948G is not a core switch, it is an access switch.

A 6500 is an example of a core switch.

 

[KiscoKid]

The definition of a backbone is open to interpretation. A single device could feasibly be a core (backbone), distribution and access layer device all in one. If someone wants to implement a single device to perform all these functions they could and, technically, it would be a backbone device. However why you'd want a 2948G to be a backbone device would be unusual and wouldn't be my first choice (or 2nd or 3rd choice for that matter).

 

[maxsterling21]

We're a pretty small firm here, approximately 45 users and 70 workstations. Our main switching devices are 2 2948G's and they're connected to a PIX515 and 2900 router.

Is there a better alternative to this design for our size? It's been in place long before I started working here... we're in the process of putting in new server racks and 2950's.

I appreciate your input.

 

[jneiberger]

If that's the case, the question isn't "Can a 2948G be a core switch?" The question is, does it do what you need it to do? Are you seeing any performance issues? Are the 2948Gs not able to keep up with your traffic load? Are they missing other features that you wish you had?

There isn't really a reason to replace them if they're working for you. We would need more information to determine if you were in need of an upgrade. Where are your servers going to be in relation to your end users? How much traffic does your network handle now? How much do you expect the load to increase after your new server racks are installed? What sorts of applications are running? Are they high-bandwidth apps? Are they overly sensitive to delay or retransmissions?

I wouldn't base your decision to upgrade solely on the model of the device. You have to have some other need that drives the upgrade. Unless you have a boatload of cash you want to burn.

 

[maxsterling21]

OK the reason for my intial post is because I'm doing a quasi-audit of our equipment. I was wondering what our 2948's are considered - network backbone? core switch? access switch? I need to label them in a report I'm putting together.

I don't think there's a need for an upgrade... our network bandwidth hasn't ever been an issue. All devices including users and servers are located in this single floor office. I just kind of put the question out there because KiscoKid made the comment about a 2948 not being adequate as a "backbone device". The fact is, the equipment is 3-5 years, if it needs to go then it needs to go... we haven't done an upgrade since the company's inception. If an upgrade is necessary, I'd prefer to do it with the right equipment.

I'm a Cisco/Networking newbie so please forgive my ignorance on this subject... I do appreciate everyone's comments. This is helping me in my quest for knowledge in this area.

 

[jneiberger]

If you're connection end-users to the switch then it's an access switch, really. A core device is typically one that supports transit traffic from one set of access/distribution devices to another set of access/distribution devices. By definition, if the switch is providing direct access for end users then it is architecturally an access switch.

In this context, I would label you devices based on their function in your network, not on their model number.

 

[vipergg]

normally 2948's are access layer switches as they are layer 2 only switches.

 

[jneiberger]

Good grief...please forgive my multitude of spelling errors. You'd think I'd know how to type by now.