Ok, that makes sense, altough with some of the cheap switches that are out
there now it's a lot less then it used to be.
(looking at a datacom warehouse catalog with a $850 24 port 3com switch on
the cover... although if you insist on useing 3com 3848 switches at $3500
each...)
David Lang
On Mon, 10 Sep 2001, Paul D. Robertson wrote:
> Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2001 20:35:18 -0400 (EDT)
> From: Paul D. Robertson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: David Lang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: Jason Lewis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED],
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: Secure lan communication (part 2)?
>
> On Mon, 10 Sep 2001, David Lang wrote:
>
> > why is a hub any better then a switch?
>
> It's not *better*, it's *cheaper* and that means you can redirect the
> funds into layer 3 architecture (routers or ports on routers.)
>
> > assuming you use switches in the same places and sizes you would a hub how
> > does replacing a single hub with a single switch loose you any security?
> >
> > note: I am in full agreement with the comments about VLAN's and counting
> > on a switch to make you safe, but that doesn't make hubs any safer.
>
> They aren't safer, they're generally equally as unsafe (perhaps switches
> are slightly "safer" in that it takes some act to get everyone else's
> traffic other than just going into promiscuous mode), but at least
> you're not stuck with people who believe that they're protected in some
> magic way. But I was really focusing on the cost difference to pay for
> more router ports (obviously then changing the case from single switch or
> hub to multiples where that makes sense.)
>
> Paul
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Paul D. Robertson "My statements in this message are personal opinions
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] which may have no basis whatsoever in fact."
>
_______________________________________________
Firewalls mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.gnac.net/mailman/listinfo/firewalls
