Which network topology is most appropriate for an environment that demands the maximum possible fault tolerance and can carry very high traffic volumes, while cost and maintenance complexity are not major concerns?
A full mesh topology is the best fit because every node has a dedicated, point-to-point connection to every other node. The resulting multiple, simultaneous paths allow traffic to be rerouted instantly if any single link or device fails, delivering superior fault tolerance and aggregate bandwidth. The downside is the large number of cables and interfaces required, making a full mesh the most expensive and complex topology-but that trade-off is acceptable in scenarios where resiliency and throughput outweigh budget.
Star topology is cheaper and easier to manage but relies on a single central switch or hub, creating a potential point of failure. Spine-and-leaf is a highly redundant, low-latency fabric optimized for east-west traffic in data centers, yet it is typically deployed where its scale and switching architecture are specifically required rather than simply to maximize resiliency at any cost. Point-to-point links connect only two nodes, offering no scalability and no alternate paths, so they provide the least redundancy of the options shown.
Ask Bash
Bash is our AI bot, trained to help you pass your exam. AI Generated Content may display inaccurate information, always double-check anything important.
What are the key advantages of a mesh topology?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
How does a mesh topology compare to a star topology in terms of fault tolerance?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
What is the primary use case for spine and leaf architecture?