Cisco’s Layer 2 Resiliency Compared to HP’s IRF Layer 2 Resiliency
1. What are three primary differences between Cisco Layer 2 network resiliency and HP IRF resiliency?
a. Cisco Layer 2
i. Hardware based
ii. Hierarchical topology
iii. Spanning Tree Protocol
iv. Layer 2/3 STP
v. Geographic resiliency at site only
b. HP Intelligent Resilient Framework (IRF)
i. Software based (including VLAN’s)
ii. Flatter topology to address performance
iii. IPv6 support
iv. Layer 2 STP
v. Geographic resiliency up to 70km
2. What are two or three advantages to each company’s Layer 2 network resilience solutions?
a. Cisco Layer 2
i. Loop avoidance
ii. Address learning
iii. Forward/Filter Decisions
b. HP IRF
i. IRF fabric can be configured for full N+1 redundancy
ii. In service software upgrade
iii. Geographic resiliency can extend horizontally and continue to function as single logical unit
3. What are two or three disadvantages of each company’s Layer 2 network resilience solutions?
a. Cisco Layer 2
i. Hardware failures can be more expensive than virtualized/software and configuration requires more time/expertise to set up
b. HP IRF
i. Virtualization of the network creates a single point of failure and is less popular which can lead to compatibility issues with other networks.
4. Which solution do you recommend for The Marketing Company and why?
a. I would recommend HP IRF to limit the cost of the setup and it being easier to maintain. The geographical location will not limit its reach, and it can support IPv6 on both layers 2 and 3.
Reference
Cisco resilient Ethernet protocol. (2007). Retrieved from http://www.cisco.com/en/US/prod/collateral/switches/ps6568/ps6580/prod_white_paper0900aecd806ec6fa.pdf
Reducing network complexity, boosting performance with HP IRF technology. (2010). Retrieved from http://h17007.www1.hp.com/docs/reports/irf.pdf