Take the 2-minute tour ×
Server Fault is a question and answer site for professional system and network administrators. It's 100% free, no registration required.

A company's in the business of developing customized software. They have three branch offices, which are located in Atlanta, Boston and San Diego, and the head office is located in Miami. When a user from Boston office wants to access a resource in San Diego office, the default route that the packet takes is Boston > Miami > San Diego. How can the network connectivity speed be improved while transferring data between Boston and San Diego? Should a new routing configuration be made to route traffic directly to San Diego, rather than going through Miami first?

What type of routing should be configured to improve the network connectivity speed while transferring data between Boston and San Diego? Should the configuration be static or dynamic routing? Can someone please help in describing the steps that must be followed to configure the selected routing type? All help is gladly appreciated, thanks.

share|improve this question
    
Is the existing connectivity done with dedicated WAN links i.e. Boston has a link to Miami and Miami has a link to San Diego ? or is it done with VPN tunnels ? –  Geraint Jones Aug 31 '10 at 9:34
add comment

1 Answer

up vote 1 down vote accepted

If there are direct links between sites, there should, ideally, be routes for the networks on the other site. For a network containing exactly three sites, it would probably not matter for the normal function if you use static or dynamic routes.

However, in a fault scenario, dynamic routing can make error recovery somewhat automated. If each office announce their local network to all other sites they have a direct connection to, the network is (eventually) made aware of the fact that one inter-site link has failed and can re-route the traffic over existing links. If you're using static routes, this would have to be done manually. Exact fail-over time would depend on the routing protocols in use and the nature of the inter-site links (in general, fail-over is faster if the router can detect a link failure locally than if it has to wait for routing protocol time-outs).

In your specific case, it would probably be better to route traffic straight through to San Diego if you either use VPN tunnels or have a direct inter-site link. If the existing network is one inter-site link from Boston to Miami and a second inter-site link from Miami to San Diego, the only obvious way to speed up transfers would be to install a third inter-site link between Boston and San Diego.

share|improve this answer
    
Thanks for the feedback, I gladly appreciate your time in answering my question...good answer by the way! –  rlopez6570 Oct 7 '10 at 3:07
add comment

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.