General discussion and advice question. I have a new Netgate 6100 to set up to replace a 3100. There is no point in using one of the 10Gbe ports on the WAN as I only have a 300/50Mbps WAN connection.
The reason for the upgrade to the 6100 was for ZFS and the boot environments feature. I also would like to be able to route between VLANS at 10G.
Without going into detail about VLANS and exactly what is on my home network, needless to say, it is the usual PoE CCTV, IoT, NAS, mobiles and laptops etc…
In the attached photo, Option 1 seems simpler to set up, but I am wondering if I am missing a trick and don’t know if it’s worth exploring option 2. Also not entirely sure how to set up/nominate spanning tree on UniFi switches past the single tick box in the dashboard.
In Option 1, I would be utilising link aggregation between 6100, switch and NAS.
Option 2 has a little more redundancy
I would really appreciate alternative points of view or if I have missed a better solution. Thanks.
If it were me, I would go for the simple setup on a home network that doesn’t really require automated redundancy. Sure it’s cool to have spanning tree, but it’s an extra complication for little benefit. If a port or switch fails at home it’s not normally too much effort to swap a couple of cables or the whole switch. Of course having said that it’s bound to happen when you’re doing something really important
Start with the simple setup and try to avoid things that need 10G speeds from being routed by putting them on the same subnet whenever possible.
K I S S when ever possible.
Spanning Tree is used to build a redundant network. Although you reach a minimum level of redundancy if you use spanning tree in option 2. I still see a lot of crucial parts of your network that are not redundant. You have only one router, one hypervisor, one Synology NAS.
So if true redundancy is your goal then it will take a lot more investments. You will need a SAN and multiple servers or a hyperconverged solution.
The downside of spanning tree is that you will block one of the lines. I am not sure if you can actually use per vlan spanning tree with the switch you have. If you use link aggregation (LACP) like you do in option 1 then you can use both links for data. You can’t fully load balance with LACP but at least you can use both wires at the same time. So, you gain a little bit of redundancy with spanning tree but you lose on load balancing.