Hey, Sean, I gotta say, it has been a while since a thread / discussion has
really struck a chord of excitement in me. A couple of us have also been
chatting off line about this topic. I think those I have spoken to privately
also agree that it is great when there is a topic that inspires one to dig a
bit, do a little research, go back and forth in attempting to understand an
issue or a point or a process, and walk away a little bit smarter. This has
been one fun thread for me, at least.
Thanks, everyone.
Chuck
-----Original Message-----
From: Odom, Sean/SAC [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, August 14, 2000 7:21 AM
To: 'Chuck Larrieu'; '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Subject: RE: Switches !!!
I had it backwards. To route between WAN no to route between VLANs yes.
Sorry it was late!
-----Original Message-----
From: Chuck Larrieu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: August 13, 2000 11:08 PM
To: Odom, Sean/SAC; 'Jeffrey Humphreys '; ''Frank Wells' ';
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Switches !!!
Is it possible that Cisco's Layer 3 switching has evolved beyond the way
things are done of the 5xxx platform. For example, my reading of the product
description of the Catalyst 4908G-L3 switch provides this info:
---------------------------------
The Catalyst 4908G-L3 provides a complete IP routing solution without
sacrificing any of the services that are required to build a scalable
network. The Catalyst 4908G-L3 is a feature-rich switch with full Cisco IOS
implementation that allows network managers to continue to administer and
manage their networks as they do today while scaling their backbone
bandwidths to gigabit speeds. The Catalyst 4908G-L3 supports all the routing
protocols that are used today in mid-sized networks. These protocols
include:
* Interior Gateway Routing Protocol (IGRP)
* Enhanced IGRP (EIGRP)
* Open Shortest Path First (OSPF)
* Routing Information Protocol (RIP) Versions 1 and 2
* Static routes
* Route redistribution
------------------------------------
Now if this guy is an OSPF router, and therefore contains a full table of
the network topology, why does it have to consult an external router to
forward a packet? Doesn't it have its own forwarding table?
I remain unenlightened, and appreciate clarification.
Chuck
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of
Odom, Sean/SAC
Sent: Sunday, August 13, 2000 10:35 PM
To: 'Jeffrey Humphreys '; ''Frank Wells' '; '[EMAIL PROTECTED] '
Subject: RE: Switches !!!
To route between a WAN yes, to resolve VLANs no.
-----Original Message-----
From: Jeffrey Humphreys
To: Odom, Sean/SAC; 'Frank Wells'; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 8/12/00 10:53 PM
Subject: Re: Switches !!!
Sean,
I'm confused. Are you saying that if I have a Catalyst 5500 with a RSP
that I will need an additional router (external to the 5500) to route
between VLANs. If that's what your saying, I would have to disagree. I
could do some additional research on it, but I want to ensure that is
what
you are saying.
I believe that the RSP is really just a 7500 and we are running a full
blown
IOS on it to boot. When I do a sho ip ro, I am seeing the local routing
table.
Thanks,
Jeff Humphreys
----- Original Message -----
From: Odom, Sean/SAC <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 'Frank Wells' <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, August 11, 2000 12:03 PM
Subject: RE: Switches !!!
> Fred
> Switches even with an internal route processor cannot take the place
of a
> router. The first packet in Multilayer switching is resolved by the
> external router. The internal route processor learns from the
forwarding
___________________________________
UPDATED Posting Guidelines: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/guide.html
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
