Path: utzoo!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!csn!boulder!daemon From: robel2@mythos.ucs.indiana.edu (Allen Robel) Newsgroups: comp.dcom.sys.cisco Subject: Re: Network config questions Message-ID: <33367@boulder.Colorado.EDU> Date: 17 Mar 91 20:25:45 GMT Sender: daemon@boulder.Colorado.EDU Lines: 66 I'll suggest the following modification to your diagram so as not to waste a subnet: Bld1 Bld2 Bld3 \ | / \ | /---- B --------- | --------- --------- --------- | Node1 | | | Node2 | | Node3 | | Node4 | | cisco | | | cisco | | cisco | | cisco | --------- | --------- --------- --------- \ \ \ \ A \ ------------- | hub | | cisco | ------------- Thus, the link to the node cisco is also the link to one of the buildings. One way to implement B in the above diagram, if you're using fiber, is to use a multiport fiber repeater with one port feeding Node1 and the other Bld3. If you're worried about the cost of the repeater, consider that you're saving an interface on the cisco. In detail, it would look like... Bld 1 |---[fiber xcvr]-----[fiber repeater] [Hub cisco][fiber xcvr]----| |---[fiber xcvr][Node1 cisco] MultiPort Fiber Repeater A disadvantage is that you'll have another repeater in the signal path to Bld3 so will need to watch the number of stacked repeaters (10baseT hubs etc.) in that building. Another advantage, though, is that Bldg3 gets fewer hops to the hub cisco (so let it be the one in which the Provost or other Big Cheese resides :-) regards, Allen Robel robelr@mythos.ucs.indiana.edu University Computing Services ROBELR@IUJADE.BITNET Network Research & Planning voice: (812)855-7171 Indiana University FAX: (812)855-8299