> hmmm, correct me if im wrong, but i think cisco uses some sort of
> store-forward algorithm, tag switching is it? makes use of both storing and
> controlling the forwarding. as for the baystacks, i have no idea what nortel
> uses as its switching algorithm.
>
nortel's low end baystack uses store and forward. the problem with store
and forward is that the entire packet is cached in the switch! and a CRC
is done. however, the cisco 5000 and up switches use fragment-free
algorithms that only does a CRC on the header of the packet and not the
entire packet. this is a better algorithm for my application but the cisco
5000 and above switches are TOO expensive. sob sob sob.
>
>
> anna.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On
> Behalf Of Horatio B. Bogbindero
> Sent: Monday, June 12, 2000 4:31 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: [plug] how good is nortel hardware?
>
> i will see. i am also considering the low end intel hubs. in terms of
> backplane size and switching algorithm which one is better. catalysts or
> baystacks.
>
> i would prefer a switch that does not use the store and forward algorithm.
> fragment-free will be good for our purpose.
>
> To leave: send "unsubscribe" in the body to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
> -
> Philippine Linux Users Group. Web site and archives at http://plug.linux.org.ph
> To leave: send "unsubscribe" in the body to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
---------------------
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Lighten up, while you still can,
Don't even try to understand,
Just find a place to make your stand,
And take it easy.
-- The Eagles, "Take It Easy"
-
Philippine Linux Users Group. Web site and archives at http://plug.linux.org.ph
To leave: send "unsubscribe" in the body to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
