In the end, the device either routes or bridges the frames it
receives, but takes no action that can be distinctly described as layer
three switching.
Pete
to my basic understanding ALL routing has a switching component to it
already, whether we're talking about regular routers or L3
At 5:57 PM + 3/14/03, Scott Roberts wrote:
In the end, the device either routes or bridges the frames it
receives, but takes no action that can be distinctly described as layer
three switching.
Pete
to my basic understanding ALL routing has a switching component to it
already,
At 05:57 PM 3/14/2003 +, Scott Roberts wrote:
In the end, the device either routes or bridges the frames it
receives, but takes no action that can be distinctly described as layer
three switching.
Pete
to my basic understanding ALL routing has a switching component to it
already,
At 4:36 AM + 3/13/03, The Long and Winding Road wrote:
The problem with this whole discussion is that it focuses around hardware
that has been defined as something by the manufacturers, and does not focus
on function.
I tried. I really tried not to rejoin this never ending thread.
But maybe
At 01:43 AM 3/13/2003 +, aletoledo wrote:
a layer three switch is a router, just as a switch is really a bridge. a
layer 3 switch 'routes' in hardware, while a router routes in software.
For what its worth, Juniper would likely take exception to your calling
their products layer three
At 10:44 PM 3/12/2003 +, Orlando, Jr. Palomar wrote:
Without consulting any documentation, a couple of reasons I could think of
is forwarding rate and the switch-fabric (or the size of the backplane,
usually in Gbps). A full-fledged Layer-3 switch running at wire-speed
would be much more
At 12:16 PM 3/13/2003 -0500, Howard C. Berkowitz wrote:
At 2:43 PM + 3/13/03, Peter van Oene wrote:
At 10:44 PM 3/12/2003 +, Orlando, Jr. Palomar wrote:
Without consulting any documentation, a couple of reasons I could think of
is forwarding rate and the switch-fabric (or the size of the
At 2:43 PM + 3/13/03, Peter van Oene wrote:
At 10:44 PM 3/12/2003 +, Orlando, Jr. Palomar wrote:
Without consulting any documentation, a couple of reasons I could think of
is forwarding rate and the switch-fabric (or the size of the backplane,
usually in Gbps). A full-fledged Layer-3
Hi ...
We have switches that operate at Layer 3..right..
My Question is when we have Routers that are good enough why do we need
switches at layer3?
Under what circumtances do we use switches instead of routers?
Hope I made Myself Clear...Thanks in Advance!!!
Regards...
Nanda
Message Posted
..
That box now can be a router for lan, wan, voice and a L2/L3
switch for a small office.
Larry Letterman
Network Engineer
Cisco Systems
- Original Message -
From: nanda
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2003 1:31 PM
Subject: Layer 3 Switches Vs Routers [7:65215
Without consulting any documentation, a couple of reasons I could think of
is forwarding rate and the switch-fabric (or the size of the backplane,
usually in Gbps). A full-fledged Layer-3 switch running at wire-speed
would be much more efficient in routing (and switching) between VLANs
compared to
a layer three switch is a router, just as a switch is really a bridge. a
layer 3 switch 'routes' in hardware, while a router routes in software.
thats the easiest way to look at them. it has gaps, but once you get the big
picture you can then start to talk about the specifics.
probably the
The problem with this whole discussion is that it focuses around hardware
that has been defined as something by the manufacturers, and does not focus
on function.
In the end, it is software - code - that does what it does, and the hardware
it runs on is irrelevant.
The OSI model is just a way
13 matches
Mail list logo
