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
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
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]...
>
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
, 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
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
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
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
ISL is Cisco proprietary and uses an encapsulation around the frame and does
not modify the Ethernet frame. 802.1Q is IEEE standard and uses frame
tagging and it modifies the Ethernet frame. ISL also allows you to violate
the Ethernet MTU size because it encapsulates the frame and does not alter
t
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
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
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
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
13 matches
Mail list logo
