From: Kevin Baumgartner (kbaumgar@xxxxxxxxx)
Date: Tue Dec 26 2000 - 19:44:53 GMT-3
At 11:34 PM 12/26/00 +0100, Asbjorn Hojmark wrote:
> > I believe you need to use a Cat 3900 with a ISL card to do TR
> > ISL.
>
>Well, it could also be a couple of C5Ks.
Could be but that's not what's in the lab. Shows a C5K and 3920.
> > The ISL card is a ethernet trunk to another switch and TR VLANs
> > are encapsulated in it.
>
>In the strictest sense, ISL isn't an *ethernet* trunk. Ethernet
>trunking is defined in 802.1Q and while ISL can *carry* ethernet
>VLANs, ISL framing can hardly be called ethernet, and ISL carry-
>ing token-ring can in no way be called ethernet.
>
>I know Cisco marketing would argue otherwise, but in my mind, ISL
>isn't ethernet any more than, say, ATM LANE.
>
> > The Cat 3920 doesn't have a ISL uplink.
>
>Huh? What about WS-C3900-2ISL?
Sure but that's a model 3900 not 3920. Close but not the same box.
The 3900 has a slot from a ISL card. the 3920 doesn't.
>Did you mean to say, there's no such thing as a 3920-uplink that
>takes token-ring VLANs and bridges to a trunk with ethernet fra-
>ming? (Sort of like the Olicom 8660 which also does 802.1Q).
Not really what I was saying. I thought that was what TR-ISL does.
>No, the thing that comes closest is a 5000-series switch with a
>token-ring blade and a route-switch module. (Not really economi-
>cally an attractive alternative).
>
> > And I don't think there exists native TR ISL
>
>I agree. There's ISL carrying ethernet and ISL carrying token-
>ring, but no such thing as native ethernet ISL og native token-
>ring ISL.
>
> > Certainly can stack 3920 switches using a special cable but
> > no mention of TR ISL.
>
>Stacking on the 3920 is ISL (carrying token-ring).
Is it. I will take your world on that. Never tried it.
- Kevin
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 13 2002 - 08:26:10 GMT-3