It's a benefit. I do not want to support 100 different vendors with 100
different sets of bugs, 100 different methods to save / restore
configurations, 100 different ways for authentication, etc etc... Today, it
is a benefit.
3550 runs IOS.
this is a benefit, especially in a switch?
PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, January 26, 2004 9:10 AM
Subject: Re: Any 1U - 2U Ethernet switches that can handle 4K VLANs?
ISL _DOES NOT CHANGE_ packet size.
An 802.1q tag adds 4 bytes to the Ethernet frame.
ISL encapsulation adds 30 bytes to the Ethernet frame.
Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting
Sorry; of course, I meant _change MTU_.
Both the ISL _and_ the Dotq headers are stripped off at the trunk
interface so they _both_ change the packet size but neither alters the
payload.
Scott C. McGrath
On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
:10 AM
Subject: Re: Any 1U - 2U Ethernet switches that can handle 4K VLANs?
ISL _DOES NOT CHANGE_ packet size.
An 802.1q tag adds 4 bytes to the Ethernet frame.
ISL encapsulation adds 30 bytes to the Ethernet frame.
Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
James Jun
On Sun, 25 Jan 2004, Alexei Roudnev wrote:
Of course, if they want L3 routing on every box (I do not like such idea,
but it's possible), then 3550 (or what do they have now?) is the best
choice.
Definately not. The 3550 is an overpriced outdated product with moderate
performance with way
Roudnev [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: ken emery [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, January 25, 2004 10:17 PM
Subject: Re: Any 1U - 2U Ethernet switches that can handle 4K VLANs?
On Sun, 25 Jan 2004, Alexei Roudnev wrote:
:
:L3 switchiong is just term for idiots - it is ROUTING in old terms
3550 runs IOS. That's an answer. I never allow any non-IOS router in
production environment (except high end devices, such as Juniper, when
benefits are very high). And 3550 is not expansive (yes, it is not cheap).
PS. How much ethernet ports do you have in the office? Do you have 100 K
ports?
On Mon, 26 Jan 2004, Alexei Roudnev wrote:
PS. How much ethernet ports do you have in the office? Do you have 100 K
ports? If not, why do you need 128K MAC's? (I know only one case, when I
need so much - some kind of DSL service...
I guess you're not into metro networking.
(just as
3550 runs IOS. That's an answer. I never allow any non-IOS router in
production environment (except high end devices, such as Juniper, when
benefits are very high). And 3550 is not expansive (yes, it is not cheap).
If you believe that IOS solves all problems, we live on different
planets.
3550 runs IOS.
this is a benefit, especially in a switch?
randy
3550 runs IOS.
this is a benefit, especially in a switch?
If your whole support organization is geared towards IOS, and unable
to learn other CLIs, it may well be. Fortunately, not all support
organizations are like that :-)
Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sun, 25 Jan 2004, Jeff Kell wrote:
We're running 30 SVIs on a 3550-12 (only 10 active at the moment, we're
in a transition). It is an aggregation switch that feeds back via L3.
According to the documentation on the Cisco site:
http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/473/145.html
The 3550-12
Subject: Re: Any 1U - 2U Ethernet switches that can handle 4K VLANs?
On Sun, 25 Jan 2004, Alexei Roudnev wrote:
:
:L3 switchiong is just term for idiots - it is ROUTING in old terms.
So,
:VLAN's means _routing_.
Um, no, VLAN does not infer routing. 802.1q and even Cisco's ugly
proprietary ISL both
ISL _DOES NOT CHANGE_ packet size.
Is it April 1st? ISL changes the size of packets, does it not? So know
you have to deal with MTU issues. What happens when I want the biggest
MTU possible? I know it is not much a difference in size, but for some
people, size does matter.
I am quite
1) Cisco ISL is much better than urgly 802.1q - first of all, it was
designed many years before 802.1q. I am not even talking abiout those
idiots, who designed 802.1q as a _spanning tree on the trunk level_,
which
made many configurations (which we used with ISL ain 199x years)
ISL _DOES NOT CHANGE_ packet size.
An 802.1q tag adds 4 bytes to the Ethernet frame.
ISL encapsulation adds 30 bytes to the Ethernet frame.
Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PS. How much ethernet ports do you have in the office? Do you have 100 K
ports? If not, why do you need 128K MAC's? (I know only one case, when I
need so much - some kind of DSL service...
I guess you're not into metro networking.
This is one of my exceptions - you really need 128K MAC's
Both the ISL _and_ the Dotq headers are stripped off at the trunk
interface so they _both_ change the packet size but neither alters the
payload.
Scott C. McGrath
On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
ISL _DOES NOT CHANGE_ packet size.
An 802.1q tag
Both the ISL _and_ the Dotq headers are stripped off at the trunk
interface so they _both_ change the packet size but neither alters the
payload.
Obviously. But the fact that ISL adds 26 bytes more than 802.1q means
that multiple levels of ISL encapsulation is somewhat less practical
than
Does anybody know of 1U - 2U form factor Ethernet switches that can
handle 4K VLANs, or at a minimum 2000 VLANs? Note that we're
specifically looking for the ability to handle this number of VLANs
operating simultaneously, not only VLAN *IDs* in the full 4K range.
(This rules out popular
On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Does anybody know of 1U - 2U form factor Ethernet switches that can
handle 4K VLANs, or at a minimum 2000 VLANs? Note that we're
specifically looking for the ability to handle this number of VLANs
operating simultaneously, not only VLAN *IDs*
On Sun, Jan 25, 2004 at 08:13:45PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Does anybody know of 1U - 2U form factor Ethernet switches that can
handle 4K VLANs, or at a minimum 2000 VLANs? Note that we're
specifically looking for the ability to handle this number of VLANs
operating simultaneously,
try extreme...
summit alpine and blackdiamond should all do that although only the
summits fit in the form-factor you're thinking of.
My experience with extremes as l3 boxes is neither recent nor pleasant,
but that's not how we use them anyway.
On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, 25 Jan 2004, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
My experience with extremes as l3 boxes is neither recent nor pleasant,
but that's not how we use them anyway.
This is interesting, what problems did you run into?
We have an extensive Extreme networks used both for L2 and L3, and apart
from the
On Sun, 25 Jan 2004, Alexei Roudnev wrote:
1) Use Cisco 2924 or 3524
Didnt you mean 2950 and 3550?
--
Mikael Abrahamssonemail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sun, 2004-01-25 at 14:44, Will Hargrave wrote:
I would check the Foundry Fastiron series - maybe the 4802. Everything
I've read appears to indicate they support all 4096 vlans
simultaneously, although you will of course want to verify this.
I don't think this is true. Those of you with
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jeff S Wheeler) [Sun 25 Jan 2004, 22:10 CET]:
On Sun, 2004-01-25 at 14:44, Will Hargrave wrote:
I would check the Foundry Fastiron series - maybe the 4802. Everything
I've read appears to indicate they support all 4096 vlans
simultaneously, although you will of course
Alexei Roudnev wrote:
1) Use Cisco 2924 or 3524
2) Redesign your network to fit into 1024 VLANs
3) Do not spend time with junk (non Cisco, for the switches).
U1 switch have only 24 - 48 ports, so you never need to handle 2000 VLAN's
on it. And I suspect, that the whole design is wrong.
Do not
On Sun, Jan 25, 2004 at 09:39:05PM +0100, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
This is interesting, what problems did you run into?
We have an extensive Extreme networks used both for L2 and L3, and apart
from the fact that it always cpu routes ICMP, I see no major flaw in the
L3 forwarding function
On Mon, 26 Jan 2004, Niels Bakker wrote:
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jeff Kell) [Mon 26 Jan 2004, 00:35 CET]:
Using 3550-48s you can have L3 links between VTP domains.
The point of using VLANs is that you don't need to route. There's
probably a good reason for switching instead of routing in the
Will Hargrave wrote:
The 'recommended max' number of SVIs for the 3550 is something low like 8.
There is no limited stated in the datasheet for the 3750 - is anyone
running more than 8 SVIs on a 3750?
We're running 30 SVIs on a 3550-12 (only 10 active at the moment, we're
in a transition). It
On Sun, 25 Jan 2004, Bill Nash wrote:
On Sun, 25 Jan 2004, ken emery wrote:
The point of using VLANs is that you don't need to route. There's
probably a good reason for switching instead of routing in the original
poster's scenario. (Perhaps a FTTH-like project?)
Correct me if
/ L3 switches/routers (and almost the same in switches).
- Original Message -
From: Mikael Abrahamsson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, January 25, 2004 12:40 PM
Subject: Re: Any 1U - 2U Ethernet switches that can handle 4K VLANs?
On Sun, 25 Jan 2004, Alexei
On Sun, 25 Jan 2004, Alexei Roudnev wrote:
:
:L3 switchiong is just term for idiots - it is ROUTING in old terms. So,
:VLAN's means _routing_.
Um, no, VLAN does not infer routing. 802.1q and even Cisco's ugly
proprietary ISL both operate at layer two.
As to L3 switching and the spin involved
On Mon, 26 Jan 2004, Will Hargrave wrote:
I'd be very interested to hear what conditions you've found cause
problems for Cat3550s. We're planning to buy quite a few more of this range
(probably 3750-24) to reduce L2 size in our network and for CPE-type
uses.
Well, we're not really sure. We
35 matches
Mail list logo
