Repost. First one didn't make it.
> -Original Message-
> From: Kaminski, Shawn G
> Sent: Friday, March 08, 2002 2:54 PM
> To: 'Groupstudy'
> Subject: ISL or 802.1q?
>
> After a search of the archives and reading the posts, I realize this has
> been discussed before. I a
I've always had the same question in my head. In our environment (all
Cisco; at least 4 6509s and about a dozen 2948s, some 3548s, 2924s, etc.) we
use 802.1q mostly because the 2948s don't support ISL. We even trunk the
6509s using 802.1q even though of course 6509s support ISL and 802.1q. But
bject: Re: ISL or 802.1q? [7:37859]
I've always had the same question in my head. In our environment (all
Cisco; at least 4 6509s and about a dozen 2948s, some 3548s, 2924s, etc.) we
use 802.1q mostly because the 2948s don't support ISL. We even trunk the
6509s using 802.1q even t
well here is a quote from cisco's site
http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/473/43.html
"Catalyst 2950 series switches only support 802.1q trunking. They do not
support ISL trunking"
and the 2950 is one of their best of breed switches...maybe this means they
will begettign rid of isl soon...
-Patr
I've heard that Cisco is getting away from ISL and going to just dot1q since
it is a standard. Let me know if I'm wrong...
-Original Message-
From: Wright, Jeremy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, March 11, 2002 9:37 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: ISL or 802.1q
the frame. I hope this helps!
Daniel Ladrach
CCNA, CCNP
WorldCom
-Original Message-
From: Kaminski, Shawn G [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, March 11, 2002 9:59 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: ISL or 802.1q? [7:37859]
Repost. First one didn't make it.
> -Original
f ISL.
Shawn K.
-Original Message-
From: Patrick Ramsey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, March 11, 2002 10:43 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: ISL or 802.1q? [7:37859]
well here is a quote from cisco's site
http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/473/43.html
"Catal
add the CAT4K to your list of dot1q only devices. The old arguement
of dot1q not supporting per VLAN spanning is also moot.
Dave
Patrick Ramsey wrote:
>
> well here is a quote from cisco's site
>
> http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/473/43.html
>
> "Catalyst 2950 series switches only support
good point. i think they are working on a standard for that now but i may be
wrong.
-Original Message-
From: MADMAN [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, March 11, 2002 10:43 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: ISL or 802.1q? [7:37859]
add the CAT4K to your list of dot1q only
, March 11, 2002 8:13 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: ISL or 802.1q? [7:37859]
I've heard that Cisco is getting away from ISL and going to just dot1q since
it is a standard. Let me know if I'm wrong...
-Original Message-
From: Wright, Jeremy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Se
Dave,
If memory serves, cisco's dot1q implementation always uses per vlan
spannging tree.
Kent
""MADMAN"" wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> add the CAT4K to your list of dot1q only devices. The old arguement
> of dot1q not supporting per VLAN spanning is also mo
I know the older 2900's so per vlan spannign tree...heh I found out the hard
way.
>>> "Kent Yu" 03/11/02 01:31PM >>>
Dave,
If memory serves, cisco's dot1q implementation always uses per vlan
spannging tree.
Kent
""MADMAN"" wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
Look at the overheads of ISL compared to dot1Q - big!
If there is no specific reason to use ISL, I think we should default towards
dot1Q for that reason alone.
Gaz
""Kent Yu"" wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Dave,
>
> If memory serves, cisco's dot1q implementat
You may be correct, I don't recall but I do remember the per VLAN
spanning issue coming up at customer meeting a few years ago. Anyone
know fur sure?
dave
Kent Yu wrote:
>
> Dave,
>
> If memory serves, cisco's dot1q implementation always uses per vlan
> spannging tree.
>
> Kent
>
> ""MAD
14 matches
Mail list logo
