The scenario
On the left is a star: Star-PC-A (10.0.0.10), Star-PC-B (10.0.0.20) and Star-PC-C (10.0.0.30) each have one cable to Star-Switch. On the right is a ring: Ring-SW-1, Ring-SW-2 and Ring-SW-3 are cabled in a triangle, and each has one PC, Ring-PC-A (10.0.2.10), Ring-PC-B (10.0.2.20) and Ring-PC-C (10.0.2.30). The star and the ring are not connected to each other. In both layouts every PC has exactly one cable; the difference is between the switches. The star has a single switch, while the ring has three, with two paths between any pair. On real hardware a ring of switches needs spanning tree or a ring protocol to stop it looping. This platform, in the simulator and live, merges switches that are cabled together into one loop-free segment, so the ring never storms here.
What you will work out
Understand the redundancy trade-off between star and ring switch layouts, and what a trace does and does not show about switches.
Why this matters
Choosing a layout is choosing which failures you can survive and what that costs. A star is cheap and easy to troubleshoot but depends on its centre; rings and meshes survive link failures but need loop prevention and more careful operation. Asking 'what happens if this cable, or this switch, fails?' of every design is the habit this lab is meant to build.
Running it
Ring vs Star: Topology Trade-offs opens on a canvas, already wired and addressed. Trace a packet through it hop by hop, or run the same topology live on real Linux network namespaces. How the two modes differ.
Open Ring vs Star: Topology Trade-offs
Runs in your browser. No install, no signup, and the simulation starts instantly.
Open the lab →