North American Network Operators Group
Date Prev | Date Next |
Date Index |
Thread Index |
Author Index |
Historical
Re: layer 3 switch debate
- From: ip dude
- Date: Fri Sep 27 13:48:30 2002
Since you are from Cisco...so it is your opinion that a Catalyst 6509 (i.e. Layer 3 switch) is equivalent to a 7206 or GSR? Of course, this is in regard to 'core' routing device in the middle of a national IP network. This network in question just happens to utilize a lot of GE LH interconnections.
--- "Stephen Sprunk" <ssprunk@cisco.com> wrote:
>
>Thus spake "ip dude" <ipdude@cattle-today.com>
>> IP Community:
>>
>> When designing an all IP network requiring mostly Ethernet interfaces, the
>logical conclusion is to specify layer 3 switches (instead of routers). The cost
>per port and functionality requirements make a layer 3 switch the perfect
>choice. However, the rule of thumb in the IP community is that routers are
>superior to layer 3 switches and should be utilized instead, especially when
>considering core type functionality.
>>
>> Does this rule of thumb still apply considering the modern layer 3 switches
>available? If not, why? What makes a layer 3 switch sub-standard to a pure
>router? Any quantitative analysis you could provide would be greatly
>appreciated.
>
>
>"switch" is a marketing term meaning fast, nothing more. Any device that
>operates at Layer 3 is a router by definition. Therefore, "Layer 3 switch"
>means "fast router".
>
>Now think about your question again.
>
>S
_____________________________________________________________
Get your own free Ranch eMail and Classified Ads at http://cattletoday.com
_____________________________________________________________
Select your own custom email address for FREE! Get you@yourchoice.com w/No Ads, 6MB, POP & more! http://www.everyone.net/selectmail?campaign=tag
|
