RE: switches

[Dave Swink]

Charles,

You are right, you would install the Catalyst 1900 by connecting it to the
HP switch with a crossover cable.  I don't know much about HP switches
either but the 1900 runs STP by default.

Here's a configuration link for the 1900.  Watch word
wrap!http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/lan/28201900/1928v9x/19
icg9x/19icoutb.htm#xtocid625518

Dave Swink
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
> Charles Paver
> Sent: Saturday, January 27, 2001 9:11 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: switches
>
>
> Hi.  I have two questions:
> 1.  Does anyone know where on the web we can have some
> free access to switches so that we may telnet into
> them?  FirewallKing.com has only router access as far
> as I could tell.
>
> 2.  At work, We are running an IBM 2210 router, with
> two hubs (ethernet 10bt) and one HP switch.  I wnat to
> install a cisco catalyst 1900 series switch as well.
> Need I run the crossover cable from switch to
> switch/hub?  Is there any ohte rway I can implement
> it?  Also, can I run stp on just the 1900 series?  I
> dont know that much about HP switches, and am focusing
> on cisco at this time.  THanks
>
>
> __
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Auctions - Buy the things you want at great prices.
> http://auctions.yahoo.com/
>
> _
> FAQ, list archives, and subscription info:
http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

_
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: Switches !!!

[Odom, Sean/SAC]

a1. How are MAC addresses used on a switch: The MAC address of the switch,
depending on the interface being used, handle this in different ways.  Some
Catalyst switches assign a global MAC address, some switches use a pool of
addresses assigning one to each interface(You can assign one manually), and
sometimes the MAC address can be a virtual MAC address when using HSRP on
mulitiple internal route processors such as the MSM, RSM, RSFC, NFFC, NFFCII
or the MSFC.  The switch is assigned an IP address and default gateway which
allows you to telnet to the switch.  On most switches you can also use the
your webrowser to access the switches configuration and make changes simply
by typing in the switches IP address.
 
a2. If two nodes on the same switch want to communicate on the same switch:
(This question requires a long answer!)
 
If: A. They are connected to the same port on the switch the switch does
nothing since the two nodes are in the same collision domain they will see
each others traffic.
 
If B. They are in the same VLAN and reside on the same switch, the switch
learns the location of each node attached by reading the first frame
received and logging the source address and port of arrival in it's Content
Addressable Memory(CAM) table. When the switch receives another frame it
checks the CAM table and if it knows the port the destination node resides
on it forwards the frame directly to that port.   If it does not know the
port, it broadcasts the frame to every port which are members of the same
VLAN with the exception to the port of arrival.  
 
If C. If the destination and source node reside on ports assigned to
different VLANs on the switch,  the switch requires an external router to
resolve the address and send the packet back to the switch.  If the switch
contains an internal route processor, the external router needs to only
resolve the first packet and then the internal route processor can finish
the job from there.  (An external router needs to be used so that a routing
protocol can be used to map the network topology to base it's routes.)
 
Hope this answers your questions.
 
Sean Odom, CCNP, MCSE, CNX-EtherII, Author, Instructor
GlobalNet Training Solutions
[EMAIL PROTECTED]  
www.TheQuestForCertication.Com   
 -Original Message-
From: Raees Ahmed Shaikh [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: August 08, 2000 11:50 PM
To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Subject: Switches !!!




 If all the ports of the switches have mac addresses than 

q.1  If somebody telnets to swithes the actual physical communication occurs
through which mac address. 
q.2  If two pcs are connected to the same swithc, and they want to
communicate  the real communication should go like this ( pc mac- switch
port mac - destination switch port mac - destination pc).

Totally confused arp arp arp. 

Please Help. 


Shaikh Raees Ahmed, 
Microsoft Certified Systems Engineer, 
Systems & Network, 
IT Division. 

___
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]

RE: Switches !!!

[Frank Wells]

Hey Sean.
This is regarding the following passage taken from the your previous reply 
to this thread:

If C. If the destination and source node reside on ports assigned to
different VLANs on the switch,  the switch requires an external router to 
resolve the address and send the packet back to the switch. <*** If the 
switch contains an internal route processor, the external router needs to 
only resolve the first packet and then the internal route processor can 
finish the job from there. ***> (An external router needs to be used so that 
a routing protocol can be used to map the network topology to base it's 
routes.)

The second sentence implies that there will always need to be at least one 
router in any switched network. Is this actually correct?  I seem to 
remember reading that there are fully switched networks utilizing layer 
three switching as the routing mechanism.  What I am getting at is I thought 
Route Switch Processors are layer three devices and fully capable of making 
their own routing decisions, in which case there would be no need for a 
router.  Can you shed some more light please.

Thanks a lot.


>From: "Odom, Sean/SAC" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: "Odom, Sean/SAC" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: "'[EMAIL PROTECTED]'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>CC: "'Raees Ahmed Shaikh'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: RE: Switches !!!
>Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2000 09:46:12 -0600
>
>a1. How are MAC addresses used on a switch: The MAC address of the switch,
>depending on the interface being used, handle this in different ways.  Some
>Catalyst switches assign a global MAC address, some switches use a pool of
>addresses assigning one to each interface(You can assign one manually), and
>sometimes the MAC address can be a virtual MAC address when using HSRP on
>mulitiple internal route processors such as the MSM, RSM, RSFC, NFFC, 
>NFFCII
>or the MSFC.  The switch is assigned an IP address and default gateway 
>which
>allows you to telnet to the switch.  On most switches you can also use the
>your webrowser to access the switches configuration and make changes simply
>by typing in the switches IP address.
>
>a2. If two nodes on the same switch want to communicate on the same switch:
>(This question requires a long answer!)
>
>If: A. They are connected to the same port on the switch the switch does
>nothing since the two nodes are in the same collision domain they will see
>each others traffic.
>
>If B. They are in the same VLAN and reside on the same switch, the switch
>learns the location of each node attached by reading the first frame
>received and logging the source address and port of arrival in it's Content
>Addressable Memory(CAM) table. When the switch receives another frame it
>checks the CAM table and if it knows the port the destination node resides
>on it forwards the frame directly to that port.   If it does not know the
>port, it broadcasts the frame to every port which are members of the same
>VLAN with the exception to the port of arrival.
>
>If C. If the destination and source node reside on ports assigned to
>different VLANs on the switch,  the switch requires an external router to
>resolve the address and send the packet back to the switch.  If the switch
>contains an internal route processor, the external router needs to only
>resolve the first packet and then the internal route processor can finish
>the job from there.  (An external router needs to be used so that a routing
>protocol can be used to map the network topology to base it's routes.)
>
>Hope this answers your questions.
>
>Sean Odom, CCNP, MCSE, CNX-EtherII, Author, Instructor
>GlobalNet Training Solutions
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>www.TheQuestForCertication.Com <http://www.TheQuestForCertication.Com>
>  -Original Message-
>From: Raees Ahmed Shaikh [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>Sent: August 08, 2000 11:50 PM
>To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
>Subject: Switches !!!
>
>
>
>
>  If all the ports of the switches have mac addresses than
>
>q.1  If somebody telnets to swithes the actual physical communication 
>occurs
>through which mac address.
>q.2  If two pcs are connected to the same swithc, and they want to
>communicate  the real communication should go like this ( pc mac- switch
>port mac - destination switch port mac - destination pc).
>
>Totally confused arp arp arp.
>
>Please Help.
>
>
>Shaikh Raees Ahmed,
>Microsoft Certified Systems Engineer,
>Systems & Network,
>IT Division.
>
>___
>UPDATED Posting Guidelines: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/guide.html
>FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.

RE: Switches !!!

[Frank Wells]

What Sean implied here is you will always need a router to route between 
VLAN's. I thought you could use a router (router on a stick)OR
a RSP. He claims that the initial route needs to be found by a router and 
then the RSP can take over.  I still have a problem with this concept 
because I have read about networks consisting entirely of switches from 
access layer up to the core layers, and switched across WAN's too!!!



>From: Chris Larson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: 'Frank Wells' <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: RE: Switches !!!
>Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2000 14:04:36 -0400
>
>You will always need to have a router or a route processor to router 
>between
>VLANS. At least with current technology. Layer 3 switching is really just
>being able to processes a route and then forward at switch or wire speeds.
>It still needs to process a route, and is routing between lan segments.
>
>
>In the second part I believe Sean is speaking about Netflow switching where
>the router determines how to route a source/destinatioon once, and once the
>switch learns how that packet was routed through the switch, the next time
>it recieves a similiar source/destination that normaly would require route
>processing it will just switch the packet to the appropriate port based on
>what it learned the last time without asking the router to process a route.
>
>
>
>-Original Message-
>From: Frank Wells [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>Sent: Friday, August 11, 2000 12:30 PM
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: RE: Switches !!!
>
>
>Hey Sean.
>This is regarding the following passage taken from the your previous reply
>to this thread:
>
>If C. If the destination and source node reside on ports assigned to
>different VLANs on the switch,  the switch requires an external router to
>resolve the address and send the packet back to the switch. <*** If the
>switch contains an internal route processor, the external router needs to
>only resolve the first packet and then the internal route processor can
>finish the job from there. ***> (An external router needs to be used so 
>that
>
>a routing protocol can be used to map the network topology to base it's
>routes.)
>
>The second sentence implies that there will always need to be at least one
>router in any switched network. Is this actually correct?  I seem to
>remember reading that there are fully switched networks utilizing layer
>three switching as the routing mechanism.  What I am getting at is I 
>thought
>
>Route Switch Processors are layer three devices and fully capable of making
>their own routing decisions, in which case there would be no need for a
>router.  Can you shed some more light please.
>
>Thanks a lot.
>
>
> >From: "Odom, Sean/SAC" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Reply-To: "Odom, Sean/SAC" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >To: "'[EMAIL PROTECTED]'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >CC: "'Raees Ahmed Shaikh'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Subject: RE: Switches !!!
> >Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2000 09:46:12 -0600
> >
> >a1. How are MAC addresses used on a switch: The MAC address of the 
>switch,
> >depending on the interface being used, handle this in different ways.  
>Some
> >Catalyst switches assign a global MAC address, some switches use a pool 
>of
> >addresses assigning one to each interface(You can assign one manually), 
>and
> >sometimes the MAC address can be a virtual MAC address when using HSRP on
> >mulitiple internal route processors such as the MSM, RSM, RSFC, NFFC,
> >NFFCII
> >or the MSFC.  The switch is assigned an IP address and default gateway
> >which
> >allows you to telnet to the switch.  On most switches you can also use 
>the
> >your webrowser to access the switches configuration and make changes 
>simply
> >by typing in the switches IP address.
> >
> >a2. If two nodes on the same switch want to communicate on the same 
>switch:
> >(This question requires a long answer!)
> >
> >If: A. They are connected to the same port on the switch the switch does
> >nothing since the two nodes are in the same collision domain they will 
>see
> >each others traffic.
> >
> >If B. They are in the same VLAN and reside on the same switch, the switch
> >learns the location of each node attached by reading the first frame
> >received and logging the source address and port of arrival in it's 
>Content
> >Addressable Memory(CAM) table. When the switch receives another frame it
> >checks the CAM table and if it knows the port the destination node 
>resides
> >on it forwards the frame direct

RE: Switches !!!

[Odom, Sean/SAC]

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
decision made by the external router and then uses that resolution for the
remainder of the flow from the source to the destination without using the
external route processor.  Unless the external route router must be used as
a gateway to leave the local boundaries.  To answer your question,  a
switched network must still use an external router for Layer 3 resolution.
Switches using Layer 3 modules merely releive the router of precious
processing power.  Hope this helps.  I have two books on switching which can
be used to answer your questions.  Visit my website
www.TheQuestForCertification.Com.  -Sean

>Sean Odom, CCNP, MCSE, CNX-EtherII, Author, Instructor
>GlobalNet Training Solutions
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>www.TheQuestForCertication.Com <http://www.TheQuestForCertication.Com>

-Original Message-
From: Frank Wells [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: August 11, 2000 9:30 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Switches !!!


Hey Sean.
This is regarding the following passage taken from the your previous reply 
to this thread:

If C. If the destination and source node reside on ports assigned to
different VLANs on the switch,  the switch requires an external router to 
resolve the address and send the packet back to the switch. <*** If the 
switch contains an internal route processor, the external router needs to 
only resolve the first packet and then the internal route processor can 
finish the job from there. ***> (An external router needs to be used so that

a routing protocol can be used to map the network topology to base it's 
routes.)

The second sentence implies that there will always need to be at least one 
router in any switched network. Is this actually correct?  I seem to 
remember reading that there are fully switched networks utilizing layer 
three switching as the routing mechanism.  What I am getting at is I thought

Route Switch Processors are layer three devices and fully capable of making 
their own routing decisions, in which case there would be no need for a 
router.  Can you shed some more light please.

Thanks a lot.


>From: "Odom, Sean/SAC" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: "Odom, Sean/SAC" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: "'[EMAIL PROTECTED]'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>CC: "'Raees Ahmed Shaikh'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: RE: Switches !!!
>Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2000 09:46:12 -0600
>
>a1. How are MAC addresses used on a switch: The MAC address of the switch,
>depending on the interface being used, handle this in different ways.  Some
>Catalyst switches assign a global MAC address, some switches use a pool of
>addresses assigning one to each interface(You can assign one manually), and
>sometimes the MAC address can be a virtual MAC address when using HSRP on
>mulitiple internal route processors such as the MSM, RSM, RSFC, NFFC, 
>NFFCII
>or the MSFC.  The switch is assigned an IP address and default gateway 
>which
>allows you to telnet to the switch.  On most switches you can also use the
>your webrowser to access the switches configuration and make changes simply
>by typing in the switches IP address.
>
>a2. If two nodes on the same switch want to communicate on the same switch:
>(This question requires a long answer!)
>
>If: A. They are connected to the same port on the switch the switch does
>nothing since the two nodes are in the same collision domain they will see
>each others traffic.
>
>If B. They are in the same VLAN and reside on the same switch, the switch
>learns the location of each node attached by reading the first frame
>received and logging the source address and port of arrival in it's Content
>Addressable Memory(CAM) table. When the switch receives another frame it
>checks the CAM table and if it knows the port the destination node resides
>on it forwards the frame directly to that port.   If it does not know the
>port, it broadcasts the frame to every port which are members of the same
>VLAN with the exception to the port of arrival.
>
>If C. If the destination and source node reside on ports assigned to
>different VLANs on the switch,  the switch requires an external router to
>resolve the address and send the packet back to the switch.  If the switch
>contains an internal route processor, the external router needs to only
>resolve the first packet and then the internal route processor can finish
>the job from there.  (An external router needs to be used so that a routing
>protocol can be used to map the network topology to base it's routes.)
>
>Hope this answers your q

RE: Switches !!!

[Chuck Larrieu]

I've just been doing some research for a customer proposal. What I have
found is that the Cisco's so-called layer three switches will natively route
RIP, but if you want more capability you pay for a software enhancement that
will permit OSPF, IGRP, and EIGRP, or in other words, turns the L3 switch
into a real router :->

Is this more or less what you folks are talking about?

Chuck

-Original Message-
From:   [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of
Frank Wells
Sent:   Friday, August 11, 2000 11:15 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject:    RE: Switches !!!

What Sean implied here is you will always need a router to route between
VLAN's. I thought you could use a router (router on a stick)OR
a RSP. He claims that the initial route needs to be found by a router and
then the RSP can take over.  I still have a problem with this concept
because I have read about networks consisting entirely of switches from
access layer up to the core layers, and switched across WAN's too!!!



>From: Chris Larson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: 'Frank Wells' <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: RE: Switches !!!
>Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2000 14:04:36 -0400
>
>You will always need to have a router or a route processor to router
>between
>VLANS. At least with current technology. Layer 3 switching is really just
>being able to processes a route and then forward at switch or wire speeds.
>It still needs to process a route, and is routing between lan segments.
>
>
>In the second part I believe Sean is speaking about Netflow switching where
>the router determines how to route a source/destinatioon once, and once the
>switch learns how that packet was routed through the switch, the next time
>it recieves a similiar source/destination that normaly would require route
>processing it will just switch the packet to the appropriate port based on
>what it learned the last time without asking the router to process a route.
>
>
>
>-Original Message-
>From: Frank Wells [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>Sent: Friday, August 11, 2000 12:30 PM
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: RE: Switches !!!
>
>
>Hey Sean.
>This is regarding the following passage taken from the your previous reply
>to this thread:
>
>If C. If the destination and source node reside on ports assigned to
>different VLANs on the switch,  the switch requires an external router to
>resolve the address and send the packet back to the switch. <*** If the
>switch contains an internal route processor, the external router needs to
>only resolve the first packet and then the internal route processor can
>finish the job from there. ***> (An external router needs to be used so
>that
>
>a routing protocol can be used to map the network topology to base it's
>routes.)
>
>The second sentence implies that there will always need to be at least one
>router in any switched network. Is this actually correct?  I seem to
>remember reading that there are fully switched networks utilizing layer
>three switching as the routing mechanism.  What I am getting at is I
>thought
>
>Route Switch Processors are layer three devices and fully capable of making
>their own routing decisions, in which case there would be no need for a
>router.  Can you shed some more light please.
>
>Thanks a lot.
>
>
> >From: "Odom, Sean/SAC" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Reply-To: "Odom, Sean/SAC" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >To: "'[EMAIL PROTECTED]'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >CC: "'Raees Ahmed Shaikh'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Subject: RE: Switches !!!
> >Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2000 09:46:12 -0600
> >
> >a1. How are MAC addresses used on a switch: The MAC address of the
>switch,
> >depending on the interface being used, handle this in different ways.
>Some
> >Catalyst switches assign a global MAC address, some switches use a pool
>of
> >addresses assigning one to each interface(You can assign one manually),
>and
> >sometimes the MAC address can be a virtual MAC address when using HSRP on
> >mulitiple internal route processors such as the MSM, RSM, RSFC, NFFC,
> >NFFCII
> >or the MSFC.  The switch is assigned an IP address and default gateway
> >which
> >allows you to telnet to the switch.  On most switches you can also use
>the
> >your webrowser to access the switches configuration and make changes
>simply
> >by typing in the switches IP address.
> >
> >a2. If two nodes on the same switch want to communicate on the same
>switch:
> >(This question requires a long answer!)
> >
> >If: A. They are connected to the same port on the switch the switch does
> >

RE: Switches !!!

[Chris Larson]

You will always need to have a router or a route processor to router between
VLANS. At least with current technology. Layer 3 switching is really just
being able to processes a route and then forward at switch or wire speeds.
It still needs to process a route, and is routing between lan segments.


In the second part I believe Sean is speaking about Netflow switching where
the router determines how to route a source/destinatioon once, and once the
switch learns how that packet was routed through the switch, the next time
it recieves a similiar source/destination that normaly would require route
processing it will just switch the packet to the appropriate port based on
what it learned the last time without asking the router to process a route.



-Original Message-
From: Frank Wells [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, August 11, 2000 12:30 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Switches !!!


Hey Sean.
This is regarding the following passage taken from the your previous reply 
to this thread:

If C. If the destination and source node reside on ports assigned to
different VLANs on the switch,  the switch requires an external router to 
resolve the address and send the packet back to the switch. <*** If the 
switch contains an internal route processor, the external router needs to 
only resolve the first packet and then the internal route processor can 
finish the job from there. ***> (An external router needs to be used so that

a routing protocol can be used to map the network topology to base it's 
routes.)

The second sentence implies that there will always need to be at least one 
router in any switched network. Is this actually correct?  I seem to 
remember reading that there are fully switched networks utilizing layer 
three switching as the routing mechanism.  What I am getting at is I thought

Route Switch Processors are layer three devices and fully capable of making 
their own routing decisions, in which case there would be no need for a 
router.  Can you shed some more light please.

Thanks a lot.


>From: "Odom, Sean/SAC" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: "Odom, Sean/SAC" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: "'[EMAIL PROTECTED]'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>CC: "'Raees Ahmed Shaikh'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: RE: Switches !!!
>Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2000 09:46:12 -0600
>
>a1. How are MAC addresses used on a switch: The MAC address of the switch,
>depending on the interface being used, handle this in different ways.  Some
>Catalyst switches assign a global MAC address, some switches use a pool of
>addresses assigning one to each interface(You can assign one manually), and
>sometimes the MAC address can be a virtual MAC address when using HSRP on
>mulitiple internal route processors such as the MSM, RSM, RSFC, NFFC, 
>NFFCII
>or the MSFC.  The switch is assigned an IP address and default gateway 
>which
>allows you to telnet to the switch.  On most switches you can also use the
>your webrowser to access the switches configuration and make changes simply
>by typing in the switches IP address.
>
>a2. If two nodes on the same switch want to communicate on the same switch:
>(This question requires a long answer!)
>
>If: A. They are connected to the same port on the switch the switch does
>nothing since the two nodes are in the same collision domain they will see
>each others traffic.
>
>If B. They are in the same VLAN and reside on the same switch, the switch
>learns the location of each node attached by reading the first frame
>received and logging the source address and port of arrival in it's Content
>Addressable Memory(CAM) table. When the switch receives another frame it
>checks the CAM table and if it knows the port the destination node resides
>on it forwards the frame directly to that port.   If it does not know the
>port, it broadcasts the frame to every port which are members of the same
>VLAN with the exception to the port of arrival.
>
>If C. If the destination and source node reside on ports assigned to
>different VLANs on the switch,  the switch requires an external router to
>resolve the address and send the packet back to the switch.  If the switch
>contains an internal route processor, the external router needs to only
>resolve the first packet and then the internal route processor can finish
>the job from there.  (An external router needs to be used so that a routing
>protocol can be used to map the network topology to base it's routes.)
>
>Hope this answers your questions.
>
>Sean Odom, CCNP, MCSE, CNX-EtherII, Author, Instructor
>GlobalNet Training Solutions
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>www.TheQuestForCertication.Com <http://www.TheQuestForCertication.Com>
>  -Original Message-
>From: Raees Ahmed

RE: Switches !!!

[Odom, Sean/SAC]

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
> decision made by the external router and then uses that resolution for
the
> remainder of the flow from the source to the destination without using
the
> external route processor.  Unless the external route router must be
used
as
> a gateway to leave the local boundaries.  To answer your question,  a
> switched network must still use an external router for Layer 3
resolution.
> Switches using Layer 3 modules merely releive the router of precious
> processing power.  Hope this helps.  I have two books on switching
which
can
> be used to answer your questions.  Visit my website
> www.TheQuestForCertification.Com.  -Sean
>
> >Sean Odom, CCNP, MCSE, CNX-EtherII, Author, Instructor
> >GlobalNet Training Solutions
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >www.TheQuestForCertication.Com
<http://www.TheQuestForCertication.Com>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Frank Wells [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: August 11, 2000 9:30 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: Switches !!!
>
>
> Hey Sean.
> This is regarding the following passage taken from the your previous
reply
> to this thread:
>
> If C. If the destination and source node reside on ports assigned to
> different VLANs on the switch,  the switch requires an external router
to
> resolve the address and send the packet back to the switch. <*** If
the
> switch contains an internal route processor, the external router needs
to
> only resolve the first packet and then the internal route processor
can
> finish the job from there. ***> (An external router needs to be used
so
that
>
> a routing protocol can be used to map the network topology to base
it's
> routes.)
>
> The second sentence implies that there will always need to be at least
one
> router in any switched network. Is this actually correct?  I seem to
> remember reading that there are fully switched networks utilizing
layer
> three switching as the routing mechanism.  What I am getting at is I
thought
>
> Route Switch Processors are layer three devices and fully capable of
making
> their own routing decisions, in which case there would be no need for
a
> router.  Can you shed some more light please.
>
> Thanks a lot.
>
>
> >From: "Odom, Sean/SAC" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Reply-To: "Odom, Sean/SAC" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >To: "'[EMAIL PROTECTED]'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >CC: "'Raees Ahmed Shaikh'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Subject: RE: Switches !!!
> >Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2000 09:46:12 -0600
> >
> >a1. How are MAC addresses used on a switch: The MAC address of the
switch,
> >depending on the interface being used, handle this in different ways.
Some
> >Catalyst switches assign a global MAC address, some switches use a
pool
of
> >addresses assigning one to each interface(You can assign one
manually),
and
> >sometimes the MAC address can be a virtual MAC address when using
HSRP on
> >mulitiple internal route processors such as the MSM, RSM, RSFC, NFFC,
> >NFFCII
> >or the MSFC.  The switch is assigned an IP address and default
gateway
> >which
> >allows you to telnet to the switch.  On most switches you can also
use
the
> >your webrowser to access the switches configuration and make changes
simply
> >by typing in the switches IP address.
> >
> >a2. If two nodes on the same switch want to communicate on the same
switch:
> >(This question requires a long answer!)
> >
> >If: A. They are connected to the same port on the switch the swi

RE: Switches !!!

[Chuck Larrieu]

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
> decision made by the external router and then uses that resolution for
the
> remainder of the flow from the source to the destination without using
the
> external route processor.  Unless the external route router must be
used
as
> a gateway to leave the local boundaries.  To answer your question,  a
> switched network must still use an external router for Layer 3
resolution.
> Switches using Layer 3 modules merely releive the router of precious
> processing power.  Hope this helps.  I have two books on switching
which
can
> be used to answer your questions.  Visit my website
> www.TheQuestForCertification.Com.  -Sean
>
> >Sean Odom, CCNP, MCSE, CNX-EtherII, Author, Instructor
> >GlobalNet Training Solutions
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >www.TheQuestForCertication.Com
<http://www.TheQuestForCertication.Com>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Frank Wells [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: August 11, 2000 9:30 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: Switches !!!
>
>
> Hey Sean.
> This is regarding the following passage taken from the your previous
reply
> to this thread:
>
> If C. If the destination and source node reside on ports assigned to
> different VLANs on the switch,  the switch requires an external router
to
> resolve the address and send the packet back to the switch. <*** If
the
> switch contains an internal route processor, the external router needs
to
> only resolve the first packet and then the internal route processor
can
> finish the job from there. ***> (An external router needs to be used
so
that
>
> a routing protocol can be used to map the network topology to base
it's
> routes.)
>
> The second sentence implies that there will always need to be at least
one
> router in any switched network. Is this actually correct?  I seem to
> remember reading that there are fully switched networks utilizing
layer
> three switching as the routing mechanism.  What I am getting at is I
thought
>
> Route Switch Processors are layer three devices and fully capable of
making
> their own routing decisions, in which ca

RE: Switches !!!

[Alves Sgt Paulo T]

I have to say that I'm a little confused my self!
RSP "Route Switch Processor" is used by the 7500's
RSM "Route Switch Module" can be used by Cat5500 for example.
We have currently 7 5500's with RSM's, and I tell you it is doing all of the
routing for us to include VLANs.  Lot's of then.
What I am trying to say here is that I can Route between VLAN's just fine
with an RSM. I think that someone missed typed RSP with RSM.
Paulo   

-Original Message-
From: Odom, Sean/SAC [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, August 14, 2000 2:35 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
> decision made by the external router and then uses that resolution for
the
> remainder of the flow from the source to the destination without using
the
> external route processor.  Unless the external route router must be
used
as
> a gateway to leave the local boundaries.  To answer your question,  a
> switched network must still use an external router for Layer 3
resolution.
> Switches using Layer 3 modules merely releive the router of precious
> processing power.  Hope this helps.  I have two books on switching
which
can
> be used to answer your questions.  Visit my website
> www.TheQuestForCertification.Com.  -Sean
>
> >Sean Odom, CCNP, MCSE, CNX-EtherII, Author, Instructor
> >GlobalNet Training Solutions
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >www.TheQuestForCertication.Com
<http://www.TheQuestForCertication.Com>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Frank Wells [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: August 11, 2000 9:30 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: Switches !!!
>
>
> Hey Sean.
> This is regarding the following passage taken from the your previous
reply
> to this thread:
>
> If C. If the destination and source node reside on ports assigned to
> different VLANs on the switch,  the switch requires an external router
to
> resolve the address and send the packet back to the switch. <*** If
the
> switch contains an internal route processor, the external router needs
to
> only resolve the first packet and then the internal route processor
can
> finish the job from there. ***> (An external router needs to be used
so
that
>
> a routing protocol can be used to map the network topology to base
it's
> routes.)
>
> The second sentence implies that there will always need to be at least
one
> router in any switched network. Is this actually correct?  I seem to
> remember reading that there are fully switched networks utilizing
layer
> three switching as the routing mechanism.  What I am getting at is I
thought
>
> Route Switch Processors are layer three devices and fully capable of
making
> their own routing decisions, in which case there would be no need for
a
> router.  Can you shed some more light please.
>
> Thanks a lot.
>
>
> >From: "Odom, Sean/SAC" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Reply-To: "Odom, Sean/SAC" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >To: "'[EMAIL PROTECTED]'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >CC: "'Raees Ahmed Shaikh'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Subject: RE: Switches !!!
> >Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2000 09:46:12 -0600
> >
> >a1. How are MAC addresses used on a switch: The MAC address of the
switch,
> >depending on the interface being used, handle this in different ways.
Some
> >Catalyst switches assign a global MAC address, some switches use a
pool
of
> >addresses assigning one to each interface(You can assign one
man

RE: Switches !!!

[Albert Ip]

Frank,

I had the same problem as you did with the concept before.  I believe that
Sean and Chris are both talking about the same thing.  RSM module is
essentiality a router that is design to route between VLANs instead of
networks.  

Remember, there are many kinds of switches.  (Ethernet, Token Ring, ATM)
Main purpose of VLANs is to limit broadcast (that's what most of us use it
for but there are other uses like security).  

>From a design point of view and to keep it simple.  At the access layer,
each switch will have one VLAN.  At the distribute layer you would have
switches with RSP in it. It will function as the security, switching/routing
between the VLANs.  At the core layer, you can have only switches.  All
broadcast had been stop or change to unicast at the distribute layer.  In a
WAN situation, those switches could be ATM.

If you have no broadcast in your network at all, you can do without the RSP
and the VLANs.  I am not sure how such a network would work but Howard or
Priscilla can probability tell you.

I hope this helps.  A really good book to read about switching is CCIE
Professional Development: Cisco LAN Switching.

Albert

-Original Message-
From: Frank Wells [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, August 11, 2000 11:15 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Switches !!!


What Sean implied here is you will always need a router to route between 
VLAN's. I thought you could use a router (router on a stick)OR
a RSP. He claims that the initial route needs to be found by a router and 
then the RSP can take over.  I still have a problem with this concept 
because I have read about networks consisting entirely of switches from 
access layer up to the core layers, and switched across WAN's too!!!



>From: Chris Larson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: 'Frank Wells' <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: RE: Switches !!!
>Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2000 14:04:36 -0400
>
>You will always need to have a router or a route processor to router 
>between
>VLANS. At least with current technology. Layer 3 switching is really just
>being able to processes a route and then forward at switch or wire speeds.
>It still needs to process a route, and is routing between lan segments.
>
>
>In the second part I believe Sean is speaking about Netflow switching where
>the router determines how to route a source/destinatioon once, and once the
>switch learns how that packet was routed through the switch, the next time
>it recieves a similiar source/destination that normaly would require route
>processing it will just switch the packet to the appropriate port based on
>what it learned the last time without asking the router to process a route.
>
>
>
>-Original Message-
>From: Frank Wells [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>Sent: Friday, August 11, 2000 12:30 PM
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: RE: Switches !!!
>
>
>Hey Sean.
>This is regarding the following passage taken from the your previous reply
>to this thread:
>
>If C. If the destination and source node reside on ports assigned to
>different VLANs on the switch,  the switch requires an external router to
>resolve the address and send the packet back to the switch. <*** If the
>switch contains an internal route processor, the external router needs to
>only resolve the first packet and then the internal route processor can
>finish the job from there. ***> (An external router needs to be used so 
>that
>
>a routing protocol can be used to map the network topology to base it's
>routes.)
>
>The second sentence implies that there will always need to be at least one
>router in any switched network. Is this actually correct?  I seem to
>remember reading that there are fully switched networks utilizing layer
>three switching as the routing mechanism.  What I am getting at is I 
>thought
>
>Route Switch Processors are layer three devices and fully capable of making
>their own routing decisions, in which case there would be no need for a
>router.  Can you shed some more light please.
>
>Thanks a lot.
>
>
> >From: "Odom, Sean/SAC" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Reply-To: "Odom, Sean/SAC" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >To: "'[EMAIL PROTECTED]'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >CC: "'Raees Ahmed Shaikh'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Subject: RE: Switches !!!
> >Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2000 09:46:12 -0600
> >
> >a1. How are MAC addresses used on a switch: The MAC address of the 
>switch,
> >depending on the interface being used, handle this in different ways.  
>Some
> >Catalyst switches assign a global MAC address, some switches use a pool 
>of
> >addresses assigning one to each interface(You can assign one manually), 
>and
> 

RE: Switches !!!

[Alves Sgt Paulo T]

Title: Switches !!!



A.1  If you 
want to telnet into the switch you should give the switch an IP address.  
This IP address should be applied to VLAN 1.  "Administrative 
Interface"
A2  The NIC on 
the PC will broadcast their MAC address to the switch.  You're getting the 
correct picture.  However, if for some reason you are not being able to 
communicate between both PC's you need to check the port assignments on the 
switch.  All ports should be assigned to VLAN 1 by default.  If the 
ports are not asigned to the same VLAN they are going to be on seperate 
broadcast domains.  This means that in that case you'll need a router to do 
the job.
I try to be as 
simple as possible.
Paulo
If you're still 
confused don't quit.
I've been confused 
since the day I've started in this business.
 
Paulo

  -Original Message-From: Raees Ahmed Shaikh 
  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]Sent: Monday, August 14, 2000 5:23 
  PMTo: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'Subject: Switches 
  !!!
  Dear All, 
  Thanks for your discussions on this often ignored 
  topic, but still I could not understand  the communication logic. May be 
  have to dig more into switching in the physical layer.
   If all the ports of the switches have mac 
  addresses than 
  q.1  If somebody telnets to swithes the actual 
  physical communication occurs through which mac address. q.2  If two pcs are connected to the same swithc, and 
  they want to communicate  the real communication should go like this ( pc 
  mac- switch port mac - destination switch port mac - destination 
  pc).
  Totally confused arp arp arp. 
  Please Help. 
  Shaikh Raees 
  Ahmed, Microsoft Certified Systems Engineer, Systems & Network, IT Division. 

RE: Switches !!!

[Jared Carter]

Think of the RSM as a router that just happens to be inside a big switch.
It can run routing protocols (OSPF, EIGRP) just like an external router can,
which means it can make routing decisions without the aid of an external
router.  This also means it can make the initial routing decision for MLS
and from then on the switch can start forwarding packets.

/Jared

-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
> decision made by the external router and then uses that resolution for
the
> remainder of the flow from the source to the destination without using
the
> external route processor.  Unless the external route router must be
used
as
> a gateway to leave the local boundaries.  To answer your question,  a
> switched network must still use an external router for Layer 3
resolution.
> Switches using Layer 3 modules merely releive the router of precious
> processing power.  Hope this helps.  I have two books on switching
which
can
> be used to answer your questions.  Visit my website
> www.TheQuestForCertification.Com.  -Sean
>
> >Sean Odom, CCNP, MCSE, CNX-EtherII, Author, Instructor
> >GlobalNet Training Solutions
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >www.TheQuestForCertication.Com
<http://www.TheQuestForCertication.Com>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Frank Wells [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: August 11, 2000 9:30 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: Switches !!!
>
>
> Hey Sean.
> This is regarding the following passage taken from the your previous
reply
> to this thread:
>
> If C. If the destination and source node reside on ports assigned to
> different VLANs on the switch,  the switch requires an external router
to
> resolve the address and send the packet back to the switch. <*** If
the
> switch contains an internal route processor, the external router needs
to
> only resolve the first packet and then the internal route processor
can
> finish the job from there. ***> (An external router needs to be used
so
that
>
> a routing protocol can be used to map the network topology to base
it's
> routes.)
>
> The second sentence implies that there will always need to be at least
one
> router in any switched network. Is this actually correct?  I seem to
> remember reading that there are fully switched networks utilizing
layer
> three switching as the routing mechanism.  What I am getting at is I
thought
>
> Route Switch Processors are layer three devices and fully capable of
making
> their own routing decisions, in which case there would be no need for
a
> router.  Can you shed some more light please.
>
> Thanks a lot.
>
>
> >From: "Odom, Sean/SAC" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Reply-To: "Odom, Sean/SAC" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >To: "'[EMAIL PROTECTED]'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >CC: "'Raees Ahmed Shaikh'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Subject: RE: Switches !!!
> >Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2000 09:46:12 -0600
> >
> >a1. How are MAC addresses used on a switch: The MAC address of the
switch,
> >depending on the interface being used, handle this in different ways.
Some
> >Catalyst switches assign a global MAC address, some switches use a
pool
of
> >addresses assigning one to each interface(You can assign one
manually),
and
> >sometimes the MAC address can be a virtual MAC address when using
HSRP on
> >mulitiple internal route processors such as the MSM, RSM, RSFC, NFFC,
> >NFFCII
> >or the MSFC.  The switch is assigned an IP address and default
gateway
> >which
> >allows you to telnet to the switch.  On most switches you can also
use
the
> >your webrowser to access the switche

RE: Switches !!!

[jenny . mcleod]

I don't believe this is correct.

"Layer 3 switching is hardware-based routing. In particular, the packet
forwarding is handled by specialized hardware, usually ASICs. Depending on the
protocols, interfaces, and features supported, Layer 3 switches can be used in
place of routers in a campus design... Cisco's Layer 3 switching implementation
on the Catalyst family of switches combines the full multiprotocol routing
support of the Cisco IOS software with hardware-based Layer 3 switching. The
Route Switch Module (RSM) is an IOS-based router with the same Reduced
Instruction Set Computing (RISC) processor as the RSP2 engine in the high-end
Cisco 7500 router family. The hardware-based Layer 3 switching is achieved with
ASICs on the NetFlow feature card. The NetFlow feature card is a daughter-card
upgrade to the Supervisor Engine on a Catalyst 5000 family multilayer switch. "
This from http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/cc/so/cuso/epso/entdes/highd_wp.htm

Also, from the BCMSN course notes, "An alternative to using a layer 2 switch and
a layer 3 router is to use the next generation of LAN switches, called layer 3
switches.  These new switches integrate layer 2 and layer 3 functionality in a
single box".

My understanding is that an RSM/RSFC/MSM is a full-featured router on a card.
If it swims like a duck, flies like a duck, and quacks like a duck, I don't care
if it's called Layer 3 switching.  As far as I can see, it's just missing a few
tail feathers in the form of WAN interfaces - it can still fly like a duck, just
not over long distances :-)

JMcL


-- Forwarded by Jenny Mcleod/NSO/CSDA on 14/08/2000 10:27 am
---


"Odom, Sean/SAC" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on 12/08/2000 03:03:10 am

Please respond to "Odom, Sean/SAC" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>


To:   "'Frank Wells'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cc:(bcc: JENNY MCLEOD/NSO/CSDA)
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
decision made by the external router and then uses that resolution for the
remainder of the flow from the source to the destination without using the
external route processor.  Unless the external route router must be used as
a gateway to leave the local boundaries.  To answer your question,  a
switched network must still use an external router for Layer 3 resolution.
Switches using Layer 3 modules merely releive the router of precious
processing power.  Hope this helps.  I have two books on switching which can
be used to answer your questions.  Visit my website
www.TheQuestForCertification.Com.  -Sean

>Sean Odom, CCNP, MCSE, CNX-EtherII, Author, Instructor
>GlobalNet Training Solutions
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>www.TheQuestForCertication.Com <http://www.TheQuestForCertication.Com>

-Original Message-
From: Frank Wells [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: August 11, 2000 9:30 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Switches !!!


Hey Sean.
This is regarding the following passage taken from the your previous reply
to this thread:

If C. If the destination and source node reside on ports assigned to
different VLANs on the switch,  the switch requires an external router to
resolve the address and send the packet back to the switch. <*** If the
switch contains an internal route processor, the external router needs to
only resolve the first packet and then the internal route processor can
finish the job from there. ***> (An external router needs to be used so that

a routing protocol can be used to map the network topology to base it's
routes.)

The second sentence implies that there will always need to be at least one
router in any switched network. Is this actually correct?  I seem to
remember reading that there are fully switched networks utilizing layer
three switching as the routing mechanism.  What I am getting at is I thought

Route Switch Processors are layer three devices and fully capable of making
their own routing decisions, in which case there would be no need for a
router.  Can you shed some more light please.

Thanks a lot.


>From: "Odom, Sean/SAC" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: "Odom, Sean/SAC" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: "'[EMAIL PROTECTED]'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>CC: "'Raees Ahmed Shaikh'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: RE: Switches !!!
>Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2000 09:46:12 -0600
>
>a1. How are MAC addresses used on a switch: The MAC address of the switch,
>depending on the interface being used, handle this in different ways.  Some
>Catalyst switches assign a global MAC address, some switches use a pool of
>

RE: Switches !!!

[Howard C. Berkowitz]

>I have to say that I'm a little confused my self!
>RSP "Route Switch Processor" is used by the 7500's
>RSM "Route Switch Module" can be used by Cat5500 for example.
>We have currently 7 5500's with RSM's, and I tell you it is doing all of the
>routing for us to include VLANs.  Lot's of then.
>What I am trying to say here is that I can Route between VLAN's just fine
>with an RSM. I think that someone missed typed RSP with RSM.
>Paulo


Nahhh...

The guts of a RSM and RSP are the same. The RSM connects to a Cat5000 
bus and can have its own WAN interface.  The RSP connects to a CBus 
in a 7x00.  There are also faster RSPs available than RSMs.

___
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]

Re: Switches !!!

[Jeffrey Humphreys]

Sorry, I was thinking RSM and typed RSP but I don't see much of a difference
in there functionality.  I agree with Howard's description of the RSP and
RSM.  We pretty much just took a 7500 RSP and modified it to interface to
the Catalyst bus.

Jeff Humphreys

- Original Message -
From: Howard C. Berkowitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, August 14, 2000 7:32 PM
Subject: RE: Switches !!!


> >I have to say that I'm a little confused my self!
> >RSP "Route Switch Processor" is used by the 7500's
> >RSM "Route Switch Module" can be used by Cat5500 for example.
> >We have currently 7 5500's with RSM's, and I tell you it is doing all of
the
> >routing for us to include VLANs.  Lot's of then.
> >What I am trying to say here is that I can Route between VLAN's just fine
> >with an RSM. I think that someone missed typed RSP with RSM.
> >Paulo
>
>
> Nahhh...
>
> The guts of a RSM and RSP are the same. The RSM connects to a Cat5000
> bus and can have its own WAN interface.  The RSP connects to a CBus
> in a 7x00.  There are also faster RSPs available than RSMs.
>
> ___
> 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]

___
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]

Re: Switches !!!

[Howard C. Berkowitz]

>Sorry, I was thinking RSM and typed RSP but I don't see much of a difference
>in there functionality.  I agree with Howard's description of the RSP and
>RSM.  We pretty much just took a 7500 RSP and modified it to interface to
>the Catalyst bus.
>
>Jeff Humphreys

And if you _really_ want to get confused, pity me a bit when I came 
to Nortel.  Acronym collision with a crash.  On the newer Nortel 
platforms, the RSP is the forwarding engine, comparable to the Cisco 
VIP, and the SSP is the management and path determination processor, 
comparable to the "R" part of the Cisco RSP.

>
>- Original Message -
>From: Howard C. Berkowitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Sent: Monday, August 14, 2000 7:32 PM
>Subject: RE: Switches !!!
>
>
>  > >I have to say that I'm a little confused my self!
>  > >RSP "Route Switch Processor" is used by the 7500's
>  > >RSM "Route Switch Module" can be used by Cat5500 for example.
>  > >We have currently 7 5500's with RSM's, and I tell you it is doing all of
>the
>  > >routing for us to include VLANs.  Lot's of then.
>  > >What I am trying to say here is that I can Route between VLAN's just fine
>  > >with an RSM. I think that someone missed typed RSP with RSM.
>  > >Paulo
>  >
>  >
>  > Nahhh...
>  >
>  > The guts of a RSM and RSP are the same. The RSM connects to a Cat5000
>  > bus and can have its own WAN interface.  The RSP connects to a CBus
>  > in a 7x00.  There are also faster RSPs available than RSMs.

___
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]

RE: Switches !!!

[Odom, Sean/SAC]

Great!  Did you see the post by Howard?  He summed up interVLAN routing very
technically in-depth.  -Sean

Sean Odom, CCNP, MCSE, CNX-EtherII
Coriolis/Sybex Author
www.TheQuestForCetification.com
E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



One of the things that confuses this discussion is that "switch" is 
more a marketing than a technical term.  Certainly "layer 3 switch" 
is a marketing term.

There seems to be an assumption in this discussion that fastest is 
always best. No. Taking off my Cisco stockholder hat, cheapest that 
will do the job is best.

Regardless of the vendor, routing has two distinct functions.  Path 
determination builds the "routing table," or, more properly, the 
Routing Information Base (RIB). The RIB is what you see when you do a 
"show IP route."  RIBs are optimized for updating by dynamic routing. 
Incidentally, the OSPF database, BGP Adj-RIB, etc., are not part of 
the RIB, but are inputs to it.

Typically, the first packet to a destination must go through the RIB 
to get the FIB set up.

 From the RIB is derived the Forwarding Information Base (FIB), which 
the second function, packet forwarding, examines to select the 
outgoing interface to which the packet is to be sent, based minimally 
on destination address.

In process switching, the RIB and FIB are the same data structure. 
There is no true FIB.

In fast switching, there is a FIB, which still is in main RAM, and 
forwarding is done by the CPU.

In autonomous and silicon switching on the AGS+ and 7000, the FIB was 
in a separate memory, and the bus controller (AGS) or Silicon Switch 
Processor (7000) did the forwarding. The FIB was on the same board as 
the forwarding engine.  FIB memory was small, so if the particular 
destination was not present (i.e., new or not recently used), there 
could be "cache misses". On a cache miss, the FIB was invalidated and 
rebuilt from the RIB.

In optimum switching, the FIB and RIB are both on the RSP card, but 
in separate physical memories.  One processor/memory set does path 
determination, and one does forwarding.

In distributed switching (CEF and NetFlow) on router platforms, 
simplifying slightly, there is one RIB but multiple copies of the FIB 
are distributed onto the VIPs, each of which runs a separate 
forwarding process.  VIPs have large memories, so the FIB and RIB (at 
least in CEF) are in 1:1 correspondence, and there are no cache 
misses.  Still, the first packet to a destination goes through the 
RIB.

In distributed/layer3 switching on "switch" platforms, there remains 
a single route determination engine. This can be in the same physical 
chassis (e.g., RSM in a 5000), or in a separate chassis (the 
"external router").  A Cisco proprietary protocol transfers the FIB 
information to a NFFC on a 5000 series or to a forwarding board on 
the higher-speed distributed switches.

Using an external router platform as the source of the FIB, or even 
using an external router for all inter-VLAN routing, is simply a 
design choice.  A very real-world situation is having your clients in 
one place and servers in another, but on the same VLAN (or using 
VLAN-aware NICs). In such a situation, the actual requirement for 
inter-VLAN forwarding may be limited to management (e.g., pinging 
from the management station) or perhaps email.   The function of 
routing is important, but not the speed.

In this case, to keep costs low, I'd consider, in order,

 1.  Use a 2600 to do all inter-VLAN routing
 2.  Use a 3600 to do it a little faster
 3.  I don't know the most recent support for external path
determination --
 used to be that the 4500/4700 was the lowest platform. Probably a
3600
 can these days.  Use a 3600 as path determination engine and an
NFFC
 or equivalent on the switch platform(s).
 4.  Use an RSM/NFFC or equivalent.
 5.  Use a 1/12000, etc., for very heavy routing loads with multiple
 WAN interfaces. A 7200 or 7500 might be appropriate in some cases



-Original Message-
From: Chuck Larrieu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: August 14, 2000 9:56 PM
To: Cisco Mail List
Subject: FW: Switches !!!



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 

Re: Switches !!!

[Howard C. Berkowitz]

>On Tue, 15 Aug 2000, Howard C. Berkowitz wrote:
>
>  > And if you _really_ want to get confused, pity me a bit when I came
>  > to Nortel.  Acronym collision with a crash.  On the newer Nortel
>  > platforms, the RSP is the forwarding engine, comparable to the Cisco
>  > VIP, and the SSP is the management and path determination processor,
>  > comparable to the "R" part of the Cisco RSP.
>
>BTW, does cisco still use ciscofusion to refer to that distributed
>architecture? I don't recall seeing the name lately.


Haven't seen it much myself.  Has fusion grown cold?

>
>ObPointlessReminiscing: It used to be that you could make cisco
>salescritters twitch nervously by asking innocently what was the
>difference between a 7000 or 7500 loaded with VIP cards and a
>Well^H^H^H^HBay^H^H^HNortel high-end router (BN? ABN? BCN? I forgot -
>that was nearly 10 years ago).
>


Similarities and differences. On the Bay devices, any card could be 
the main processor as well, which preceded Cisco's HSA feature. 
Cisco's counterclaim was that VIPs cost less and were more optimized 
for forwarding.

In the newer platforms from both vendors, there really is 
convergence.  Line cards do forwarding and multiple processor cards 
do path determination.  Things get even more complex, and there are 
no simple answers, when one considers more processing-intensive 
functions like filtering, traffic shaping, encryption, compression, 
etc., and whether these are in the "fast path," a coprocessor, or the 
main processor.   I'm sure you will see both similarities and 
differences in new products from all vendors.

___
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]

Re: Switches !!!

[Kevin Wigle]

hmmm. in the aforementioned new Cisco CDs I just got there is a "8
Minute Layer III Switching QuickStudy".

The interesting thing it points out between differences in using a router to
route or a switch to "route" is that routers have RISC processors and
switches have ASICs.

It goes on to say that the RISC is more powerful and meant for doing other
things like encryption, handling WAN traffic, etc -  whereas ASIC does
forwarding only. (but is much faster doing it)

So it comes down to your environment and the invariable "what problem are
you trying to solve"  kind of thing.

Kevin Wigle

- Original Message -
From: "Jeffrey Humphreys" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Howard C. Berkowitz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, 14 August, 2000 23:42
Subject: Re: Switches !!!


> Sorry, I was thinking RSM and typed RSP but I don't see much of a
difference
> in there functionality.  I agree with Howard's description of the RSP and
> RSM.  We pretty much just took a 7500 RSP and modified it to interface to
> the Catalyst bus.
>
> Jeff Humphreys
>
> - Original Message -
> From: Howard C. Berkowitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Monday, August 14, 2000 7:32 PM
> Subject: RE: Switches !!!
>
>
> > >I have to say that I'm a little confused my self!
> > >RSP "Route Switch Processor" is used by the 7500's
> > >RSM "Route Switch Module" can be used by Cat5500 for example.
> > >We have currently 7 5500's with RSM's, and I tell you it is doing all
of
> the
> > >routing for us to include VLANs.  Lot's of then.
> > >What I am trying to say here is that I can Route between VLAN's just
fine
> > >with an RSM. I think that someone missed typed RSP with RSM.
> > >Paulo
> >
> >
> > Nahhh...
> >
> > The guts of a RSM and RSP are the same. The RSM connects to a Cat5000
> > bus and can have its own WAN interface.  The RSP connects to a CBus
> > in a 7x00.  There are also faster RSPs available than RSMs.
> >
> > ___
> > 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]
>
> ___
> 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]
>

___
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]

RE: Switches !!!

[Chuck Larrieu]

>From the Cisco website:

http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/cc/so/cuso/epso/entdes/highd_wp.htm
watch that wrap :->

Layer 3 switching is hardware-based routing. In particular, the packet
forwarding is handled by specialized hardware, usually ASICs. Depending on
the protocols, interfaces, and features supported, Layer 3 switches can be
used in place of routers in a campus design. Layer 3 switches that support
standards-based packet header rewrite and time-to-live (TTL) decrement are
called packet-by-packet Layer 3 switches.
High-performance packet-by-packet Layer 3 switching is achieved in different
ways. The Cisco 12000 Gigabit Switch Router (GSR) achieves wire-speed Layer
3 switching with a crossbar switch matrix. The Catalyst(r) family of
multilayer switches performs Layer 3 switching with ASICs developed for the
Supervisor Engine. Regardless of the underlying technology, Cisco's
packet-by-packet Layer 3 switching implementations are standards-compliant
and operate as a fast router to external devices

End quote.

But also look at this:

http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/784/packet/july98/12.html

The primary difference between the packet-switching operation of a router
and a Layer 3 switch is the physical implementation. In general-purpose
routers, packet switching is typically performed by microprocessor-based
engines. A Layer 3 switch performs packet switching with
application-specific integrated circuit (ASIC) hardware, which enables
greater raw throughput.

Although higher-speed packet switching would seem to offer obvious benefits,
a common but flawed assumption is that it will automatically improve the
speed of applications. For example, if application demand on the network is
10,000 pps, and current Layer 3 devices process packets at 200,000 pps,
replacing them with devices that perform even at 10 million pps will not
speed up the applications.

Raw performance, therefore, is not the most important criterion for
selecting a Layer 3 switch. Route processing and intelligent network
services -- two vital software functions -- have a more significant impact
on the performance of specific applications and the network as a whole.

End of quote

Note the caveat, from Cisco's own mouth, as it were: layer 3 switching
cannot be assumed to automatically improve network performance.

This continues to be a wonderful thread, one forcing me, at least, to push
the envelope in my studying.

Chuck


-Original Message-
From:   [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of
Kevin Wigle
Sent:   Tuesday, August 15, 2000 4:09 PM
To: Jeffrey Humphreys; Howard C. Berkowitz; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject:Re: Switches !!!

hmmm. in the aforementioned new Cisco CDs I just got there is a "8
Minute Layer III Switching QuickStudy".

The interesting thing it points out between differences in using a router to
route or a switch to "route" is that routers have RISC processors and
switches have ASICs.

It goes on to say that the RISC is more powerful and meant for doing other
things like encryption, handling WAN traffic, etc -  whereas ASIC does
forwarding only. (but is much faster doing it)

So it comes down to your environment and the invariable "what problem are
you trying to solve"  kind of thing.

Kevin Wigle

- Original Message -
From: "Jeffrey Humphreys" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Howard C. Berkowitz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, 14 August, 2000 23:42
Subject: Re: Switches !!!


> Sorry, I was thinking RSM and typed RSP but I don't see much of a
difference
> in there functionality.  I agree with Howard's description of the RSP and
> RSM.  We pretty much just took a 7500 RSP and modified it to interface to
> the Catalyst bus.
>
> Jeff Humphreys
>
> - Original Message -
> From: Howard C. Berkowitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Monday, August 14, 2000 7:32 PM
> Subject: RE: Switches !!!
>
>
> > >I have to say that I'm a little confused my self!
> > >RSP "Route Switch Processor" is used by the 7500's
> > >RSM "Route Switch Module" can be used by Cat5500 for example.
> > >We have currently 7 5500's with RSM's, and I tell you it is doing all
of
> the
> > >routing for us to include VLANs.  Lot's of then.
> > >What I am trying to say here is that I can Route between VLAN's just
fine
> > >with an RSM. I think that someone missed typed RSP with RSM.
> > >Paulo
> >
> >
> > Nahhh...
> >
> > The guts of a RSM and RSP are the same. The RSM connects to a Cat5000
> > bus and can have its own WAN interface.  The RSP connects to a CBus
> > in a 7x00.  There are also faster RSPs available than RSMs.
> >
> > __

RE: Switches !!!

[Howard C. Berkowitz]

Comments inline...assume I am holding my breath, turning blue, and 
kicking and screaming on the floor about certain terminology.


>From the Cisco website:
>
>http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/cc/so/cuso/epso/entdes/highd_wp.htm
>watch that wrap :->
>
>Layer 3 switching is hardware-based routing.
   ^^^
packet forwarding. packet forwarding. packet forwarding. packet forwarding.

NOT path determination or extensive processing

>  In particular, the packet
>forwarding is handled by specialized hardware, usually ASICs. Depending on
>the protocols, interfaces, and features supported, Layer 3 switches can be
>used in place of routers in a campus design. Layer 3 switches that support
>standards-based packet header rewrite and time-to-live (TTL) decrement are
>called packet-by-packet Layer 3 switches.
>High-performance packet-by-packet Layer 3 switching is achieved in different
>ways. The Cisco 12000 Gigabit Switch Router (GSR) achieves wire-speed Layer
>3 switching with a crossbar switch matrix.

Wire speed, as with many vendors, is open to interpretation.  Dig 
through the release notes, and the Cisco-commissioned Tolly Group 
reports, to see how much throughput drops unless one is EXTREMELY 
careful with filtering and traffic shaping/policing.

>The Catalyst(r) family of
>multilayer switches performs Layer 3 switching with ASICs developed for the
>Supervisor Engine. Regardless of the underlying technology, Cisco's
>packet-by-packet Layer 3 switching implementations are standards-compliant
>and operate as a fast router to external devices
>
>End quote.

Without going into product futures, suffice it to say that I'm 
actively involved in next-generation carrier router design.  ASICs 
have their role, but there are many specialized processing functions 
that need different optimizations than a forwarding ASIC.  DSP's. 
Encryption. Compression.

And the path determination part of routing.

>
>But also look at this:
>
>[snip]



>Although higher-speed packet switching would seem to offer obvious benefits,
>a common but flawed assumption is that it will automatically improve the
>speed of applications. For example, if application demand on the network is
>10,000 pps, and current Layer 3 devices process packets at 200,000 pps,
>replacing them with devices that perform even at 10 million pps will not
>speed up the applications.

There is a very widespread misperception that routers and switches 
impose significant latency. At one time, this was true. Be very 
careful not to confuse port-to-port internal delays with queueing and 
serialization delays.  it takes, for example, 1200 microseconds for a 
full-length Ethernet packet to get through an input interface at 10 
Mbps.

___
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]

Re: switches [7:3145]

[Jason Roysdon]

Free access to 4 switches were posted in the last two days:
http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=3093&t=3093
http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=3097&t=3097

ebay/ebay
24.3.233.101 2005
24.3.233.101 2006
24.3.233.101 2007
24.3.233.101 2008

See http://www.firewallking.com/phpnuke/html/layout.php as well.


--
Jason Roysdon, CCNP+Security/CCDP, MCSE, CNA, Network+, A+
List email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Homepage: http://jason.artoo.net/



""John Andrews""  wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Does anyone know where any free switches or switching sites are for
practice
> prior to the test that I can access from home.
>
> John
>
> Have a great day!
> John A
> FAQ, list archives, and subscription info:
http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
> Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]




Message Posted at:
http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=3151&t=3145
--
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Switches and VLANs

[Tony Olzak]

This one will depend on the model of switch you have. The newer 2900XL and
3500XL have what's called "multi-VLAN" on a port. All broadcast traffic from
every VLAN configured on the interface will flood that port. However, if you
are only using one switch (say in a small implementation), you can use this
config to separate traffic at layer 2 while using a flat layer 3 scheme. For
example, say you have a small company with two departments. One is
engineering and the other is office workers. The engineering department is
VLAN 2 and the other is VLAN 3. Everyone has an IP address in the
192.168.1.XXX range. Using the multi-VLAN function, you can set each port
that has a server to VLANs 2 and 3. This way, each department can
communicate with the servers, but the broadcast traffic is not propagated to
the PCs in each department. You do not need routing to reach the server. To
further segment, you could put all printers in VLAN  4 (with every host
printing to a queue on the server) and include each server in that VLAN as
well. This way, any garbage traffic from print servers (i.e. Jetdirects)
won't get to the rest of your net also. You cannot use "multi-VLAN" and VLAN
trunks on the same switch. Also, spanning-tree has problems if you try to
set up "multi-VLAN" on inter-switch links instead of a trunk.

Multiple VLANs can also exist when using VLAN trunks. These can be either
ISL, 802.1Q, or 802.10. Intel makes a server card that will do ISL so you
don't need to hit the router to get to each server also.


Tony Olzak, CCNP, MCSE


Oscar Rau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> We have 24 port switch with 3 VLANs. Can a port exist on 2 VLANs at the
> same time? Is yes, do the packets from VLAN 1 get broadcasted on VLAN 2?
>
> Thank you for any information.
>
> Oscar Rau
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
> ___
> 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]
> ---


___
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]

RE: Switches and VLANs

[Matt C. Lange]

a port can belong to 2 vlans but I believe it has to be a trunk port.  You
will need a router/rsm to route between vlans.

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
Oscar Rau
Sent: Thursday, July 20, 2000 4:03 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Switches and VLANs


We have 24 port switch with 3 VLANs. Can a port exist on 2 VLANs at the
same time? Is yes, do the packets from VLAN 1 get broadcasted on VLAN 2?

Thank you for any information.

Oscar Rau
[EMAIL PROTECTED]


___
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]

___
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]

Re: Switches and VLANs

[RAUL RENTERIA]

a port can only belong to "1" vlan at "1" time.
the only time "1" port can be part of more than "1" vlan
is  when it "TRUNKS".

If you want vlan 1 to communicate to vlan 2; you need a router for vlan 
routing

Raul Renteria.CCNA.Network Analyst.NYC


>From: Oscar Rau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: Oscar Rau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Switches and VLANs
>Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 23:03:16 -0500
>
>We have 24 port switch with 3 VLANs. Can a port exist on 2 VLANs at the
>same time? Is yes, do the packets from VLAN 1 get broadcasted on VLAN 2?
>
>Thank you for any information.
>
>Oscar Rau
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>___
>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]


Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com

___
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]

Re: Switches and VLANs

[Tony Olzak]

The PCs would not be able to communicate to each other without going through
a router. The example was for a smaller company who only had PCs that
communicated with servers. With the servers being on a "multi-VLAN" port,
you wouldn't need  a router to allow hosts in VLANs 2 or 3 to hit the
servers.


Tony Olzak, CCNP, MCSE


- Original Message -
From: jeongwoo park <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, July 20, 2000 5:08 PM
Subject: Switches and VLANs


> hi olzak!
> I have a question.
> How can a pc in VLan 2 reach to a pc in Vlan 3 without
> hitting a router?
> As far as I know, router would interconnect different
> Vlans.(in your example, Vlan 2 and Vlan3).
>
> I mean, is it possible not to use a router to connect
> different Vlans, because it can be done using
> Multi-Vlan function on 2900XL version?
>
> I will appreciate your reply.
>
> jeongwoo
>
> __
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Get Yahoo! Mail - Free email you can access from anywhere!
> http://mail.yahoo.com/
>

___
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]

RE: Switches and VLANs

[Luong, David]

Title: RE: Switches and VLANs





Just a note in addition to Tony's reply..


You cannot have inter-vlan communication without a RSM or a router-on-a-stick procedureTony's email assumes that vlan2 and vlan3 are isolated and do not necessary have to share information.

I have never dealt with ISL-capable NICS, I wonder what are the costs differences between a regular NIC?


David Luong
CCNP,CCNA,Network+,A+,i-Net+
Telecommunications Analyst
Insurance Corporation of B.C.
Vancouver, B.C CANADA



-Original Message-
From: Tony Olzak [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2000 8:18 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Switches and VLANs



This one will depend on the model of switch you have. The newer 2900XL and
3500XL have what's called "multi-VLAN" on a port. All broadcast traffic from
every VLAN configured on the interface will flood that port. However, if you
are only using one switch (say in a small implementation), you can use this
config to separate traffic at layer 2 while using a flat layer 3 scheme. For
example, say you have a small company with two departments. One is
engineering and the other is office workers. The engineering department is
VLAN 2 and the other is VLAN 3. Everyone has an IP address in the
192.168.1.XXX range. Using the multi-VLAN function, you can set each port
that has a server to VLANs 2 and 3. This way, each department can
communicate with the servers, but the broadcast traffic is not propagated to
the PCs in each department. You do not need routing to reach the server. To
further segment, you could put all printers in VLAN  4 (with every host
printing to a queue on the server) and include each server in that VLAN as
well. This way, any garbage traffic from print servers (i.e. Jetdirects)
won't get to the rest of your net also. You cannot use "multi-VLAN" and VLAN
trunks on the same switch. Also, spanning-tree has problems if you try to
set up "multi-VLAN" on inter-switch links instead of a trunk.


Multiple VLANs can also exist when using VLAN trunks. These can be either
ISL, 802.1Q, or 802.10. Intel makes a server card that will do ISL so you
don't need to hit the router to get to each server also.



Tony Olzak, CCNP, MCSE



Oscar Rau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]" TARGET="_blank">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> We have 24 port switch with 3 VLANs. Can a port exist on 2 VLANs at the
> same time? Is yes, do the packets from VLAN 1 get broadcasted on VLAN 2?
>
> Thank you for any information.
>
> Oscar Rau
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
> ___
> 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]
> ---



___
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]

Re: Switches and VLANs

[Janto Cin]

A nontrunking dynamic port can't belong to multiple VLANs simultaneously.
Correct me if I'm wrong.

On Wed, 19 Jul 2000, Oscar Rau wrote:

> We have 24 port switch with 3 VLANs. Can a port exist on 2 VLANs at the
> same time? Is yes, do the packets from VLAN 1 get broadcasted on VLAN 2?
> 
> Thank you for any information.
> 
> Oscar Rau
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
> 
> ___
> 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]
> 

___
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]

Re: Switches and VLANs

[Tony Olzak]

See my previous post about the new switch IOS on 2900XL and 3500XL switches
and the "multi-VLAN" command.


Tony

Janto Cin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> A nontrunking dynamic port can't belong to multiple VLANs simultaneously.
> Correct me if I'm wrong.
>
> On Wed, 19 Jul 2000, Oscar Rau wrote:
>
> > We have 24 port switch with 3 VLANs. Can a port exist on 2 VLANs at the
> > same time? Is yes, do the packets from VLAN 1 get broadcasted on VLAN 2?
> >
> > Thank you for any information.
> >
> > Oscar Rau
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> >
> > ___
> > 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]
> >
>
> ___
> 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]
> ---


___
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]

RE: Switches/cables [7:3673]

[Jim Brown]

It is sort of like the ratings on tires. You should buy something like a Z
rated tire for high speeds on an automobile. You can buy a cheaper tire, but
it probably won't hold up at 150mph. It will work fine for cruising around,
but watch out when you try to push it to the limit.

Those connectors will work but errors and other issues can effectively
reduce your net speed.

-Original Message-
From: John Chang [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2001 2:08 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Switches/cables [7:3673]


I looked at my G4 mac and the Apple System Profiler says 100Mbps/full 
duplex.  The 3548 XL switch says 100Mbps/full duplex.  How could that be 
possible when the patch panel connectors are 10Mbps and the connector on 
the wall is 10Mbps.  The cable is Cat 5.  I thought everything was suppose 
to be 100Mbps for the switch and the computer to register it as 
100Mbps/full??  So, what gives?  Thanks.
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info:
http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]




Message Posted at:
http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=3675&t=3673
--
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Switches whitout ip [7:32063]

[Patrick Ramsey]

uhhh...  Well

I guess you could place the switches mac in the arp cache of the router at
that facility under the ip address you want to assign to it...then telnet to
the ip address you have in cache.  I haven't tried this on cisco devices
before...It could be considered a security flaw for a switch to allow this. 
In theory though, if you don't have to arp for the mac, you should be
allowed access to it.  Unless cisco checks for it's own layer 3 info, it
should work.

good luck... Most people assign it via console  : )

-Patrick

ps. remember, you have to be local th that switch, so it has to be another
switch or the local router to that facility.

>>> "Joaquim Lopes"  01/15/02 04:32PM >>>
Hi, how can i remotely assign ip to switches?
Thanks




Message Posted at:
http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=32070&t=32063
--
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Switches whitout ip [7:32063]

[Gaz]

Joaquim,

I noticed a few months ago with 3548's straight out of the box, they
automatically went to DHCP server for IP address and hostname was
auto-configured.
Confused me at first, and I remember wondering what real use it would be. I
think at the time the only thing I looked up was how to stop it.
What switches are you using and what do you want to achieve?


Gaz


""Joaquim Lopes""  wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Hi, how can i remotely assign ip to switches?
> Thanks




Message Posted at:
http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=32216&t=32063
--
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: Switches !!! (trimmed and re-sent)

[Howard C. Berkowitz]

One of the things that confuses this discussion is that "switch" is 
more a marketing than a technical term.  Certainly "layer 3 switch" 
is a marketing term.

There seems to be an assumption in this discussion that fastest is 
always best. No. Taking off my Cisco stockholder hat, cheapest that 
will do the job is best.

Regardless of the vendor, routing has two distinct functions.  Path 
determination builds the "routing table," or, more properly, the 
Routing Information Base (RIB). The RIB is what you see when you do a 
"show IP route."  RIBs are optimized for updating by dynamic routing. 
Incidentally, the OSPF database, BGP Adj-RIB, etc., are not part of 
the RIB, but are inputs to it.

Typically, the first packet to a destination must go through the RIB 
to get the FIB set up.

 From the RIB is derived the Forwarding Information Base (FIB), which 
the second function, packet forwarding, examines to select the 
outgoing interface to which the packet is to be sent, based minimally 
on destination address.

In process switching, the RIB and FIB are the same data structure. 
There is no true FIB.

In fast switching, there is a FIB, which still is in main RAM, and 
forwarding is done by the CPU.

In autonomous and silicon switching on the AGS+ and 7000, the FIB was 
in a separate memory, and the bus controller (AGS) or Silicon Switch 
Processor (7000) did the forwarding. The FIB was on the same board as 
the forwarding engine.  FIB memory was small, so if the particular 
destination was not present (i.e., new or not recently used), there 
could be "cache misses". On a cache miss, the FIB was invalidated and 
rebuilt from the RIB.

In optimum switching, the FIB and RIB are both on the RSP card, but 
in separate physical memories.  One processor/memory set does path 
determination, and one does forwarding.

In distributed switching (CEF and NetFlow) on router platforms, 
simplifying slightly, there is one RIB but multiple copies of the FIB 
are distributed onto the VIPs, each of which runs a separate 
forwarding process.  VIPs have large memories, so the FIB and RIB (at 
least in CEF) are in 1:1 correspondence, and there are no cache 
misses.  Still, the first packet to a destination goes through the 
RIB.

In distributed/layer3 switching on "switch" platforms, there remains 
a single route determination engine. This can be in the same physical 
chassis (e.g., RSM in a 5000), or in a separate chassis (the 
"external router").  A Cisco proprietary protocol transfers the FIB 
information to a NFFC on a 5000 series or to a forwarding board on 
the higher-speed distributed switches.

Using an external router platform as the source of the FIB, or even 
using an external router for all inter-VLAN routing, is simply a 
design choice.  A very real-world situation is having your clients in 
one place and servers in another, but on the same VLAN (or using 
VLAN-aware NICs). In such a situation, the actual requirement for 
inter-VLAN forwarding may be limited to management (e.g., pinging 
from the management station) or perhaps email.   The function of 
routing is important, but not the speed.

In this case, to keep costs low, I'd consider, in order,

 1.  Use a 2600 to do all inter-VLAN routing
 2.  Use a 3600 to do it a little faster
 3.  I don't know the most recent support for external path determination --
 used to be that the 4500/4700 was the lowest platform. Probably a 3600
 can these days.  Use a 3600 as path determination engine and an NFFC
 or equivalent on the switch platform(s).
 4.  Use an RSM/NFFC or equivalent.
 5.  Use a 1/12000, etc., for very heavy routing loads with multiple
 WAN interfaces. A 7200 or 7500 might be appropriate in some cases
"What Problem are you trying to solve?"
***send Cisco questions to the list, so all can benefit -- not 
directly to me***

Howard C. Berkowitz  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Technical Director, CertificationZone.com
Senior Product Manager, Carrier Packet Solutions, NortelNetworks (for ID only)
   but Cisco stockholder!
"retired" Certified Cisco Systems Instructor (CID) #93005

___
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]

Re: Switches !!! (trimmed and re-sent)

[Jeff Kell]

"Howard C. Berkowitz" wrote:

> In this case, to keep costs low, I'd consider, in order,
> 
>  1.  Use a 2600 to do all inter-VLAN routing
>  2.  Use a 3600 to do it a little faster
>  3.  I don't know the most recent support for external path 
>  determination -- used to be that the 4500/4700 was the 
>  lowest platform. Probably a 3600 can these days.  Use a 
>  3600 as path determination engine and an NFFC or equivalent 
>  on the switch platform(s).
>  4.  Use an RSM/NFFC or equivalent.
>  5.  Use a 1/12000, etc., for very heavy routing loads with 
>  multiple WAN interfaces. A 7200 or 7500 might be 
>  appropriate in some cases

Oddly enough, we run the opposite scenario, only having a bit over a
half-dozen DS1 WAN links, but 20+ internal VLANs/subnets.  We have the
big guns (7500/4500M) doing ISL router-on-a-stick trunks to a 5500 with
NFFC-IIs (yes, we route IPX/AT/MCast locally) over 100Mb FE links (or in
the 7500 case, a 2-port Fast Etherchannel link) to handle VLAN route
determination.  No RSM in the 5500, only the NFFC-IIs.

The border is handled by 2 2621s and a 3640.  I "thought" that the
bandwidth demands would dictate, but lo and behold, the 3640 has the
highest processor utilization (30-60%) pushing 4 DS1s than anything
else, but then it is doing policy routing, NAT, ingress/egress
filtering, and the works.

I suppose I should rethink this (although the 7500 has no serials).
It was appropriate before the NFFC-IIs and MLS, but now that seems to
have alleviated the bulk of the router demands.  I still can't see a
1/12000 pushing a few DS1s, but perhaps the 7500 should be moved?

Thanks for the insight, Howard.

Jeff Kell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

___
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]