As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/
Options

Advanced Networking and OSPF - Need to know if I'm visualizing a configuration properly

AthenorAthenor Battle Hardened OptimistThe Skies of HiigaraRegistered User regular
I really, REALLY need to take some advanced networking classes. For now, though, I figured you guys could help.

I've got a client with a ton of locations, that is growing more and more all the time. The client is looking for redundancy and reliability and preferably a full-mesh network, but that last bit is getting harder with each new config. Right now we are relying on static routes.. which is insane and wrong.

So I've been investigating into OSPF, but I want to make sure I set it up right and don't blow out the system. Here's the basics.

Each site has a Sonicwall device. This device has a WAN port that is connected to our internet provider, and another port connected to a Cisco router that belongs to an MPLS network. This MPLS network uses BGP internally, but they have said that the edge Ciscos can be programmed for OSPF.

Each Sonicwall is going to be connected to our main site via a VPN. OSPF information can travel over this VPN.

So basically, the MPLS links are going to be full mesh, and the backup VPN links are going to be hub-spoke. So I know I can put all the VPN interfaces on Area 0, but what about the MPLS links? Because there won't be any links through the BGP (Sonicwalls don't support OSPF tunnel links), each individual OSPF should be its own area... right? Or can they all be area 0 as well, because they'll be connected via the VPN interface?

I can draw up some quick Visio diagrams if it would help, but I want to see if anyone is willing to tackle this with me first.

The end game, basically, is to have the majority of our traffic flow over the MPLS (which is slow but has QoS/SLAs on various response times), and then have the links seamlessly cut over to the VPN if the MPLS goes down.

He/Him | "A boat is always safest in the harbor, but that’s not why we build boats." | "If you run, you gain one. If you move forward, you gain two." - Suletta Mercury, G-Witch

Posts

  • Options
    Great ScottGreat Scott King of Wishful Thinking Paragon City, RIRegistered User regular
    It would really help to have a Visio, Athenor. I have a lot of questions, but mostly I'm wondering about the requirement for a full-mesh... That makes things more complicated.

    As soon as I'm at a PC I'll send you some links, but this might be something that would be more efficient over PMs(?)

    I'm unique. Just like everyone else.
  • Options
    AthenorAthenor Battle Hardened Optimist The Skies of HiigaraRegistered User regular
    That's what I was thinking too - as this is something that is fairly complex.

    The full mesh requirement is basically due to lag and latency, and the fact I'm dealing with a.. *shudder* T1 MPLS network, and I need to make point to point VoIP between handsets work with as little latency as possible. I'll throw together something basic, but yeah we can continue in PMs. I've got some technical backup, but I don't think I'm phrasing things right for them.

    He/Him | "A boat is always safest in the harbor, but that’s not why we build boats." | "If you run, you gain one. If you move forward, you gain two." - Suletta Mercury, G-Witch
  • Options
    AthenorAthenor Battle Hardened Optimist The Skies of HiigaraRegistered User regular
    I just want to throw out there that @Great Scott is absolutely awesome and a huge help for networking problems. We aren't through all the details of the problem, but we went over a good chunk tonight, and this man REALLY knows his stuff.

    you can go ahead and close this thread. :)

    He/Him | "A boat is always safest in the harbor, but that’s not why we build boats." | "If you run, you gain one. If you move forward, you gain two." - Suletta Mercury, G-Witch
This discussion has been closed.