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
[–] 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
    •