ML
    • Recent
    • Categories
    • Tags
    • Popular
    • Users
    • Groups
    • Register
    • Login

    HP Switches 2530 vs 1950 vs 1920

    Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved IT Discussion
    networkinghewlett-packardswitch
    48 Posts 4 Posters 30.5k Views
    Loading More Posts
    • Oldest to Newest
    • Newest to Oldest
    • Most Votes
    Reply
    • Reply as topic
    Log in to reply
    This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
    • scottalanmillerS
      scottalanmiller @A Former User
      last edited by

      @thecreativeone91 said:

      We don't have any VLANs here anywhere. But we do buy very high end switches from both Cisco and HP. We monitor the network heavily rather than block everything with the switches.

      Good way to go. Once you get to any size you need good switches with full monitoring capabilities (fully managed.)

      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
      • DashrenderD
        Dashrender
        last edited by

        Unless the switches can stack over ethernet (I know some can) that won't be possible completely. We have 3 switches in one building and 3 in another (I just remembered about the 6th one).

        scottalanmillerS ? 2 Replies Last reply Reply Quote 0
        • scottalanmillerS
          scottalanmiller @Dashrender
          last edited by

          @Dashrender said:

          Unless the switches can stack over ethernet (I know some can) that won't be possible completely. We have 3 switches in one building and 3 in another (I just remembered about the 6th one).

          At least stack those that you can, lower the total number of bottlenecks.

          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
          • ?
            A Former User @Dashrender
            last edited by

            @Dashrender said:

            Unless the switches can stack over ethernet (I know some can) that won't be possible completely. We have 3 switches in one building and 3 in another (I just remembered about the 6th one).

            You don't usually stack like that anyway. You usually stack your core switches and then use Etherchannel over fiber to each access switch, they are spread out so you can't stack them like you normally would effectively but, you can set them up on Cisco Switches to share configs and VLAN databases.

            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
            • DashrenderD
              Dashrender
              last edited by

              Good to know, thanks.

              1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
              • DashrenderD
                Dashrender @scottalanmiller
                last edited by

                @scottalanmiller said:

                What I would recommend considering is this:

                1. Get a new switch designed around migrating to OBFN (stackable.)
                2. Slowly move IPs over time to the new IP range as you can do so easily.
                3. Every time you replace a switch, get another stack member and move things over.
                4. Profit

                Would you start with a whole new IP range for the new network?
                For example I currently use
                172.168.30.x main network
                172.168.40.x remote location 1
                172.168.50.x remote location 2
                172.168.60.x remote location 3
                172.168.70.x remote location 4
                172.168.80.x VOIP
                172.168.90.x Wireless
                172.168.100.x VPN

                For my migration should I create something like 192.168.192/22?
                We are closing 2 of the remote locations, so I'll still need two of those smaller networks for them.

                1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                • scottalanmillerS
                  scottalanmiller
                  last edited by

                  Well it depends BUT from looking at yours I would use 172.168.30.0/22 and put all new devices above 172.168.31.0 so that there is no overlap.

                  1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                  • scottalanmillerS
                    scottalanmiller
                    last edited by

                    For security reasons, keeping VLANs or physically separate networks for VPN, DMZ and WiFi might make sense.

                    1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                    • DashrenderD
                      Dashrender
                      last edited by

                      OK, Let's talk about those.

                      The VPN currently has to allow access to both the servers and the PC's because we have some people who RDS into their PC at work, and others who just connect to the servers. Unless I do more segregation, there isn't much gained by splitting out VPN from the main network.

                      DMZ - yeah well that's always good to split, assuming you have one. Which currently I don't. Which begs, for a company my size is it worth the efforts of maintaining a DMZ? I currently host email in house and will for at least the next two years.. after that we might be ready to move to O365.

                      The WiFi is currently limited only to staff, and even the staff are not allowed to join their personal devices to the network.
                      I've talked to the board about offering free WiFi to patients, which of course the staff would take full advantage of for their personal stuff too, but so far they've said no. IF I did that, it would definitely be on its own VLAN for that SSID and only allowed out to the internet, and u-turns allowed at the firewall if found to be required.

                      Additionally - is it worth the effort to have servers be in there own VLAN separate from workstations?

                      scottalanmillerS ? 2 Replies Last reply Reply Quote 0
                      • scottalanmillerS
                        scottalanmiller @Dashrender
                        last edited by

                        @Dashrender said:

                        DMZ - yeah well that's always good to split, assuming you have one. Which currently I don't. Which begs, for a company my size is it worth the efforts of maintaining a DMZ? I currently host email in house and will for at least the next two years.. after that we might be ready to move to O365.

                        DMZ is necessitated by use, not by size. But often you don't need one, but if you do, obviously you gotta do something to secure it well.

                        For email as the only thing being hosted, normally I would not bother.

                        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                        • scottalanmillerS
                          scottalanmiller
                          last edited by

                          Especially if only for two years. How long before you would have it implemented? At least six months, I'm sure. Then the time frame gets less and less.

                          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                          • ?
                            A Former User @Dashrender
                            last edited by

                            @Dashrender said:

                            The WiFi is currently limited only to staff, and even the staff are not allowed to join their personal devices to the network.
                            I've talked to the board about offering free WiFi to patients, which of course the staff would take full advantage of for their personal stuff too, but so far they've said no. IF I did that, it would definitely be on its own VLAN for that SSID and only allowed out to the internet, and u-turns allowed at the firewall if found to be required.

                            Keep in mind not all firewalls/routers allow hairpining.

                            Anyway I would not ask to put in a Guest network if you didn't have one. We have one here that is separate and we'd love to get rid of it but people think they need it. We block streaming, P2P and most media type things on it though.

                            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
                            • DashrenderD
                              Dashrender
                              last edited by

                              As part of patient satisfaction I think we should have one. If we put it on it's own internet pipe the cost would be less than $100 a month, but we are moving soon to a new 100/20 pipe from a 10/10 pipe... so we'll have plenty of bandwidth, and with the limitations that creative mentions kinda makes it a non issue.

                              ? 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                              • ?
                                A Former User @Dashrender
                                last edited by

                                @Dashrender said:

                                As part of patient satisfaction I think we should have one. If we put it on it's own internet pipe the cost would be less than $100 a month, but we are moving soon to a new 100/20 pipe from a 10/10 pipe... so we'll have plenty of bandwidth, and with the limitations that creative mentions kinda makes it a non issue.

                                we have 100/100mb pipes. But if you give a mouse a cookie... that bandwidth can be used up in no time if you let it be.

                                1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                • 1
                                • 2
                                • 3
                                • 3 / 3
                                • First post
                                  Last post