At 04:08 PM 2/25/2003 +0000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >In a pratical world it all comes down to your needs for your business and >the money you want to spend. We use a "collapsed core" with 2 4006 with >Supervisor III's doing the layer 3 functions. We could add a high >performance layer 2 switch for the core but it would be overkill.
I don't disagree, however merely suggest that the model was driven by a vendor interested in selling more devices. Keep in mind you should also have a minimum of two devices per layer for resiliency ;-) If you have a high performance core that can provide access aggregation, packet processing and performance all at the same time, and your port costs are comparable per mbps, I'm not sure why you'd buy a distribution layer other than to help a rep hit his number for the quarter. >-----Original Message----- >From: Peter van Oene [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 8:13 AM >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Re: Core Layer L2 or L3 [7:63708] > >At 11:05 AM 2/25/2003 +0000, Skarphedinsson Arni V. wrote: > >In a Core-Distribution-Access Layer design, would you keep the Core L2 or > >with high end L2/L3 switches such as the Cat6500 do you think it would be > >better to do L3 in the core ? > >I personally haven't found the need to have a Distribution layer in most >networks. It's a model designed by vendors to sell boxes imho. > >Pete Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=63782&t=63708 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
