167
Network (lemmy.zip)
submitted 3 months ago by to c/programmer_humor@programming.dev
32 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

All hail redundancy

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 71 points 3 months ago (12 children)

This isn’t redundant, it’s failure points with extra steps.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 12 child comments
    •
  • [–] 23 points 3 months ago (5 children)

    Yes. I see two obvious ones of Switch 3 and Switch 5. Did an AI make this? If so, it wasn't a good one.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 2 points 3 months ago (4 children)

    care to explain more? of course the redundant configurations haven't been enabled, so you can see STP doing it's thing.

    if everything is done right, then where's the failure point?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 9 points 3 months ago (3 children)

    I see the problem with Switches 2 and 5. Because they don't help anything if Switch 3 or respectively 4 go down. They aren't connected to the Routers on their own. So with the current setup you could get rid of the whole row of Switches and not lose any redundancy.
    Also, you could think of aggregating your cross connections in Port Channels. Might as well use your ports if you are paying for them anyways.

    Oh, and are the WiFi and LAN supposed to be the same net? Because if they are, you don't need to go over the routers to connect between the two of them.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [+] [S] -9 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    yeah exactly it's a satire topology take it as humor

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 4 points 3 months ago (5 children)

    well how so?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 27 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (3 children)

    Switches 3 and 4 are single points of failure. The other 2 & 5 are completely redundant unnecessary.

    You can just use 2 switches total, cross-connect each to upstream, and do vLANs/subnets to isolate the traffic downstream.

    Edit: if you really wanna do physical separation and you want redundancy you'd want to connect 2&5 to both routers.

    Honestly tho textbook network with that many nodes for so few devices is already overkill for home, so doing that many switches is just... Idk man, doing full stack troubleshooting for an hour while everyone's just trying to watch a movie is gonna do more hatm than good.

    Whoever implements this should probably spin up a ticketing system for the house.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] -3 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    yeah true it's a satire topology btw

    imagine running high end switches and routers just for your kids.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •