Instructions: Write 1 thread of at least 250 words. You must support your ?assertions with at least 1 citation in

Instructions:

Write 1 thread of at least 250 words. You must support your  assertions with at least 1 citation in current APA format. Acceptable  sources include Cisco material, the Bible, and scholarly journals. You  must also reply to the 2 threads below. Each reply must be at  least 100 words.

Topic:

At your workplace or school, research to determine 1–5 network  devices in your hierarchal model.  

If you are unable to do research at your workplace or school, or you  do not have one to research, then create your own hierarchical model. Do you agree with the way  the network is designed? If so, explain why. If not, state 1 way to  improve the design and why you would make improvements.

Thread 1 Reply

  Signal flow         

From my understanding we are only a fraction of the pie. We do not  have full access of the network we fall under. The hierarchy can be  related to how the infantry is broken down to fire teams of 4. Yet in an  a platoon theres about 100 people which means theres about 20 fire  teams, creating 20 fire team leaders reporting to the Platoon Sgt who  then reports to the Platoon Commander and then he passes it to the  Company Commander etc. The purpose of having multiple bosses helps to  not overload the main boss with meaningless questions or information not  protaining to them. The way our network is design is to  mitigate unnecessary mistakes made on the network, only affecting us at  our level not disrupting the entire network enterprise.  It also brings a  sense of organization, structure, and management. If anyone has the  proper (AAA) Authorization, Authentication, and Access to be in our  domain to can be part of all broadcasting that may be informative to  them. Also file sharing and the access to the share drive on lower  networks can help not overload the pipeline to the higher echelon of the  network. If you don't have any business with management or the boss  then just avoid it, communicate between those at your level and later  with the proper authorities your message Will make it to Mr.CEO. The  Hierarchical Model we use in the military could improve if there was a  way to communicate with everyone that shares your Military Occupational  Specialty, is the only improvement I would try to implement

Thread Reply 2

  Importance of Redundancy  Collapse          

Since  I was not able to examine a network at school or work, I went to a  small business owned by a family member to see what kind of setup they  had. It turned out that only three employees worked there, so they only  had a very simple point-to-point architecture that consisted of a modem,  a router, and a switch (attached packet- “Office Hierarchy”). Because  of the limited budget and needs, I believe this basic setup fulfilled  their needs adequately. However, one of the downsides of this setup is  that each device is a single point of failure. A key factor of network  stability is implementing redundancy (Yeh & Fiondella, 2017). There  is no device redundancy on this network. As such, I decided I would make  a second diagram that implemented redundancy (“Three Tier Hierarchy”),  even though realistically it would not be possible to implement in the  business I examined. Another benefit that this setup provides is  additional scalability if the company were to hire more employees. In  its current state, this company only has one small switch, meaning the  amount of traffic that can flow through is extremely limited, and it  would be unwise to try to add a lot more users to this network. The  high-capacity switches used in the “Three Tier” diagram would allow more  users to easily connect in. Another way to identify that the smaller  network is not scalable is not only to see if its hardware exceeds its  userbase, but also to ask: If I were to expand my company, would I need  to raze my entire network design and start over? In this case, the  answer is yes—a significant size increase would mean that a fully  different scalable topology, such as a virtual bus, would need to be  created. The business could not function with its current topology. In  conclusion, because the business has not grown in size for fifty years  and is not planning to, I see no need for them to change anything;  however, I would advise them to place a high priority on keeping their  security up-to-date because of the vulnerability of the point-to-point  network.