CCIE RSv5 Equipment Build

2456720

Comments

  • The versions I'm posting are just based on what we're developing on. 15.3T or even 15.2 will still do the vast majority. Even 15.0 or 12.4T will still get you at least 80% or more. 

    For the XE switches I don't know the feature differences offhand. Check the feature navigator at http://www.cisco.com/go/fn and compare the images. In general XE is a higher release than IOS of an equal train. 

    For number of devices I doubt we'll go over 20 for routers. If you want a physical build then 20 x 1900s are fine. 

    We *won't* be using serial interfaces outside of 1% of the technology labs. There's no behavioral differences that warrant it. On a side note if anyone is looking to buy about 5000 WIC-1Ts and  DB-60 cables let me know ;)

    Brian McGahan, 4 x CCIE #8593 (R&S/SP/SC/DC), CCDE #2013::13
    [email protected]
     
    Internetwork Expert, Inc.
    http://www.INE.com

    On Apr 19, 2014, at 2:42 PM, "Ford_Prefix" <[email protected]> wrote:

    Hi Brian, could you provide some info on the INE real gear approach for full config and TS labs?
    30+ C1921 connected to 3560X 48-port switches? Maybe throw in some serial interfaces to connect a few routers to a central ISP?

    Did you decide on 15.4T as opposed to 15.3T to future-proof the lab setup?

    Concerning the switches, do you consider the 3850/3650 platforms running IOS-XE with 15.0(1)EZ2 an equivalent alternative to 15.0SE? In terms of QoS, that would also replace legacy mls config with MQC.




    INE - The Industry Leader in CCIE Preparation


    http://www.INE.com



  • Also if I was personally doing a physical build I would do 20 x 1841s plus 4 x 3560s (non-X). Unless you're working for a VAR and you have tons of boxes laying around anything else is way overkill. 

    Brian McGahan, 4 x CCIE #8593 (R&S/SP/SC/DC), CCDE #2013::13
    [email protected]
     
    Internetwork Expert, Inc.
    http://www.INE.com

    On Apr 19, 2014, at 2:42 PM, "Ford_Prefix" <[email protected]> wrote:

    Hi Brian, could you provide some info on the INE real gear approach for full config and TS labs?
    30+ C1921 connected to 3560X 48-port switches? Maybe throw in some serial interfaces to connect a few routers to a central ISP?

    Did you decide on 15.4T as opposed to 15.3T to future-proof the lab setup?

    Concerning the switches, do you consider the 3850/3650 platforms running IOS-XE with 15.0(1)EZ2 an equivalent alternative to 15.0SE? In terms of QoS, that would also replace legacy mls config with MQC.




    INE - The Industry Leader in CCIE Preparation


    http://www.INE.com



  • Hey Brian, 

     

    So your Workbook 1 labs will have different, smaller topologies than the troubleshooting and the full workbook 2 labs?

    That means three different toplogies total, and the troubleshooting and workbook2 labs will be combination of hardware/virtual?

    Can we get an understanding of what the full labs and troubleshooting labs will use from a hardware/virtual perspective or is it too early to tell?

     

  • Brian

    re: integrating gns3 into a physical lab...

    if you aren't using a multiport nic + breakout switch, how can you spool up an extra 10 7200s and map their eth ints to the 4 phys switches?   

    Cheers

  • It's not a different topology just a smaller subset of a larger one. As it stands now I'm setting the upper limit on 20 router instances and 4 switches. You may consider this the "full" topology. 

    Many technology lab examples may just use 2 or 3 routers. Other examples need more routers for the sake of path diversity or traffic engineering etc. 

    Brian McGahan, 4 x CCIE #8593 (R&S/SP/SC/DC), CCDE #2013::13
    [email protected]
     
    Internetwork Expert, Inc.
    http://www.INE.com

    On Apr 19, 2014, at 6:08 PM, "figurethisout" <[email protected]> wrote:

    Hey Brian, 

     

    So your Workbook 1 labs will have different, smaller topologies than the troubleshooting and the full workbook 2 labs?

    That means three different toplogies total, and the troubleshooting and workbook2 labs will be combination of hardware/virtual?

    Can we get an understanding of what the full labs and troubleshooting labs will use from a hardware/virtual perspective or is it too early to tell?

     




    INE - The Industry Leader in CCIE Preparation


    http://www.INE.com



  • Why couldn't you just trunk them all to one physical switch? Like I said you only really need 2 NICs on a server. One for mgmt and one for data plane. Breakout switches really won't be needed. 

    On the same note look at the expanded blueprint. True "switching" topics are probably about 5-10% of the scope.

    Brian McGahan, 4 x CCIE #8593 (R&S/SP/SC/DC), CCDE #2013::13
    [email protected]
     
    Internetwork Expert, Inc.
    http://www.INE.com

    On Apr 19, 2014, at 7:58 PM, "ukwill" <[email protected]> wrote:

    Brian

    re: integrating gns3 into a physical lab...

    if you aren't using a multiport nic + breakout switch, how can you spool up an extra 10 7200s and map their eth ints to the 4 phys switches?   

    Cheers




    INE - The Industry Leader in CCIE Preparation


    http://www.INE.com



  • I guess I'm trying to figure out how the virtual interface of the router maps to whatever phys switch port your topology requires?

    all I've been able to find is how to get a single virtual router to map to the phys int of the PC (in order, for instance, to get access to the net)

    I'm really interested in the idea of using gns3 to provide the additional routers i need, over and above the phys v4 topology I already have.  It appears to me to be the cheapest/quietest/most efficient solution.

     

  • For GNS3 I’m not sure how it’s specifically implemented, because I haven’t used it in detail for quite a while.  The logic should be the same though where the vswitch simply needs to forward to dot1q tags (trunking) from the virtual routers into the physical world.  If you google gns3 breakout switch you can find examples of how others have implemented it.  These type of details I’ll compile into the “how to build the topology” document.

     

    Brian McGahan, 4 x CCIE #8593 (R&S/SP/SC/DC), CCDE #2013::13

    [email protected]

     

    Internetwork Expert, Inc.

    http://www.INE.com

     

    From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of ukwill
    Sent: Saturday, April 19, 2014 8:58 PM
    To: Brian McGahan
    Subject: Re: [hardware] CCIE RSv5 Equipment Build

     

    I guess I'm trying to figure out how the virtual interface of the router maps to whatever phys switch port your topology requires?

    all I've been able to find is how to get a single virtual router to map to the phys int of the PC (in order, for instance, to get access to the net)

    I'm really interested in the idea of using gns3 to provide the additional routers i need, over and above the phys v4 topology I already have.  It appears to me to be the cheapest/quietest/most efficient solution.

     




    INE - The Industry Leader in CCIE Preparation
    http://www.INE.com

  • Ah, so there is a breakout switch involved - I was confused as I thought you were suggesting there wasn't one.

    In which case, I think this link is what I'm after:

    http://www.gns3.net/articles/ccie-routing-switching-lab/qinq-with-virtual-switch-option/

    This, along with an hp z800, should hopefully provide me with the additional routers I need, without having to modify/change my rack (I have a spare 3750 I can use as a breakout switch),

     

    thanks for for the info!

  • No, a breakout switch *won't* be needed. In the scheme of things layer 2 switching plays a very minor role in the overall topic scope. As long as the routers can talk to each other that's really all that matters. I'll post some example topologies of the new content after the weekend so you can get a better idea for it. 

    Brian McGahan, 4 x CCIE #8593 (R&S/SP/SC/DC), CCDE #2013::13
    [email protected]
     
    Internetwork Expert, Inc.
    http://www.INE.com

    On Apr 19, 2014, at 9:53 PM, "ukwill" <[email protected]> wrote:

    Ah, so there is a breakout switch involved - I was confused as I thought you were suggesting there wasn't one.

    In which case, I think this link is what I'm after:

    http://www.gns3.net/articles/ccie-routing-switching-lab/qinq-with-virtual-switch-option/

    This, along with an hp z800, should hopefully provide me with the additional routers I need, without having to modify/change my rack (I have a spare 3750 I can use as a breakout switch),

     

    thanks for for the info!




    INE - The Industry Leader in CCIE Preparation


    http://www.INE.com



  • That leaves me a bit confused but I'm happy to wait, as I'm planning to continue going through vol2 in the meantime.  I assume that as L2 equates to 20% in v5, the switching component is still quite important?  Sure, a glimpse of the kind of topology you're planning will help.

  • dear brain,

    should I use a server to build a virtual Lab ? what if I have a powerful desktop PC with a CPU like i7 4930k and windows 7 ? will that work ?

    also I saw you use windows server 2008 (your attached image) ! is that part of the lab ?

     

    have INE posted something related to this topic in its blog ? (like tutorials)

     

    many thanks, 

  • I don't think it's the speed or even the generation of the CPU. I think you have to throw a lot of cores  and RAM at building a CSR1000V based lab. If you're going IOU or GNS3, you'll be fine.

    Brian Dennis put a tweet out about the server he used for the 1000V, it was two eight core processors with 384gb of ram. I believe Brian McGahan has the same dev server. 

     

    32 CSR1000v's running on VMware ESXi 5.1. At around 40 instances the CPU tops out. Awesome CCIE lab for R&S or SP. pic.twitter.com/m818xZN9AX

  • thank you for your reply,

    cannot we install CSR 1000v on Vmware workstation ?

  • If i remeber correctly yes you can. You will need 64-bit machine though!

    You need the file with .ova extension.

    HTH

     

    thank you for your reply,

    cannot we install CSR 1000v on Vmware workstation ?

     

  • Yes.

    http://blog.networkbits.es/downloads/buildyourios-xelabforfree-130407062910-phpapp02.pdf

     

    perhaps a cheaper option would be 7200s / gns3.  For this, you could get by with a far cheaper rig.  

  • Hi Brian, thanks for your answers and comments.

    I expected 15.3T to be reference as this version is cited in Cisco's equipment recommendation. But you're probably right in assuming that version specifics will matter less in the upcoming lab exam format.

    Unfortunately, Cisco FN is still too unreliable to compare features across IOS/IOS-XE switching platforms (certain features are omitted on the 3850 side). I guess it's safer to just stick to the non-XE models.

    If serial interfaces fall out of the mix, will the 2 integrated ethernet interfaces of the C1900/C2900 suffice to build the INE topology?



    The versions I'm posting are just based on what we're developing on. 15.3T or even 15.2 will still do the vast majority. Even 15.0 or 12.4T will still get you at least 80% or more. 



    For the XE switches I don't know the feature differences offhand. Check the feature navigator at http://www.cisco.com/go/fn and compare the images. In general XE is a higher release than IOS of an equal train. 



    For number of devices I doubt we'll go over 20 for routers. If you want a physical build then 20 x 1900s are fine. 



    We *won't* be using serial interfaces outside of 1% of the technology labs. There's no behavioral differences that warrant it. On a side note if anyone is looking to buy about 5000 WIC-1Ts and  DB-60 cables let me know ;)




    Brian McGahan, 4 x CCIE #8593 (R&S/SP/SC/DC), CCDE #2013::13
    [email protected]
     
    Internetwork Expert, Inc.
    http://www.INE.com


     

  • Yes, this will be a VAR build. I consider an overall physical build to be easier to set up and maintain than the virtual approach. VIRL/CML might change this, depending on how expensive licensing 24 devices will turn out.

     


    Also if I was personally doing a physical build I would do 20 x 1841s plus 4 x 3560s (non-X). Unless you're working for a VAR and you have tons of boxes laying around anything else is way overkill. 

    Brian McGahan, 4 x CCIE #8593 (R&S/SP/SC/DC), CCDE #2013::13
    [email protected]
     
    Internetwork Expert, Inc.
    http://www.INE.com


     

  • thank you for your reply,

    cannot we install CSR 1000v on Vmware workstation ?

    You can, it's the same as this: http://blog.ine.com/2013/04/18/installing-the-cloud-services-router-csr1000v-in-vmware-fusion/

  • If serial interfaces fall out of the mix, will the 2 integrated ethernet interfaces of the C1900/C2900 suffice to build the INE topology?

    Yes, 2 is enough.  In reality you'll only need 1 even.

  • Yes, this will be a VAR build. I consider an overall physical build to be easier to set up and maintain than the virtual approach. VIRL/CML might change this, depending on how expensive licensing 24 devices will turn out.

    From what I hear VIRL is not going to be very cheap for the full version.  When you rack mount your physical boxes you might consider doing it on their side, since the small 1800s or 1900s aren't 1U full width.  This way you can cram lots of boxes into a physical 42U rack.  Here's an example from one of our RSv4 troubleshooting racks:

    image

    http://i.imgur.com/1tm9ult.jpg

  • This is how the physical topology should look if you're running at as physical + virtual:

    image

    http://i.imgur.com/opQ6eAJ.png

  • Here's an example logical toplogy used in the new content.  All interfaces on the routers are Ethernet subinterfaces.

    image

     

    http://i.imgur.com/MzTFz85.png

  • Here's an example of the topology if you wanted to build it 100% physical. The breakout switch could be anything that supports 802.1q tunnelling, e.g. 2950, 3550, 3750, etc.

    image

    http://i.imgur.com/PE9jjO9.png

  • Here's an example of the topology if you wanted to build it 100% physical. The breakout switch could be anything that supports 802.1q tunnelling, e.g. 2950, 3550, 3750, etc.

     

    http://i.imgur.com/PE9jjO9.png

    Brian,

    What does the vSwitch config look like? I see that you have all virtual routers depicted as being all in the same LAN segment. Do you have any other vSwitches set up between a subset of the virtual routers?

  • It's just one flat vswitch.  The routers determine the logical topology based on the 802.1q tags of their subinterfaces.

  • Thanks a lot, Brian.

     

    I will go 100% physical.

     

    Power server/workstation is very expensive in Brazil. Even if I buy from ebay I will have to pay a lot on customs fees.

     

    AT&T has CCIE’s lab racks with tons of equipment, but I want my own because I need flexible time.

     

    In my case I already have a mix of G1 & G2 routers.

     

    Let me ask you, what is the need for Breakout Switch?

     

    Cheers,

    Allysson

     

    From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Brian McGahan
    Sent: Monday, April 21, 2014 2:00 PM
    To: [email protected]
    Subject: Re: [hardware] CCIE RSv5 Equipment Build

     

    Here's an example of the topology if you wanted to build it 100% physical. The breakout switch could be anything that supports 802.1q tunnelling, e.g. 2950, 3550, 3750, etc.

    image

    http://i.imgur.com/PE9jjO9.png




    INE - The Industry Leader in CCIE Preparation
    http://www.INE.com

  • Thanks for posting this up Brian! This give me a pretty clear idea of how I need to refresh my home lab. 

    Right now I do most of my Vol 2/3 studies on rack rentals and then any deep-dives or volume 1 stuff on my home lab.

    I know its early but do you anticipate a change in the number of tokens per session?

     

    I for one cant wait for the transition to v5!!!!

  • It's just one flat vswitch.  The routers determine the logical topology based on the 802.1q tags of their subinterfaces.

    Understood. Thanks.

  • I know its early but do you anticipate a change in the number of tokens per session?

    That I don't know.  It's hard to explain because the system is going to be different than it is now.  Once it's released it'll make more sense but I can't really give any other details other than that for right now.

Sign In or Register to comment.