From: Chuck Church (cchurch@xxxxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Thu Feb 15 2001 - 18:51:50 GMT-3
The primary use of ISL is to trunk VLANs together. This job was originally
done on FDDI, then ATM, and then FE. I'm assuming they never thought the 10
mb ethernet was sufficient to tie high speed switched VLANs together. Good
idea for business networks, bad idea for those with limited budgets wanting
to learn ISL.
Chuck Church
CCNP, CCDP, MCNE, MCSE
Sr. Network Engineer
Magnacom Technologies
140 N. Rt. 303
Valley Cottage, NY 10989
845-267-4000 x218
-----Original Message-----
From: Tom Lancaster [mailto:Tom.Lancaster@adoutlet.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2001 3:57 PM
To: Ccielab@Groupstudy. Com
Subject: RE: Is ISL on 2610 possible?
Out of curiosity, does anyone know WHY Cisco has only implemented ISL on FE?
My understanding of the spec (based on white papers on CCO) is that the ISL
protocol supports Token Ring, FDDI, etc. and in fact goes to great lengths
to support things like RIF so that frames from different topologies can
coexist (encapsulated) on an uplink, but none of these were ever
implemented.
thx,
-tom
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andrew [mailto:arousch@home.com]
> Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2001 3:43 PM
> To: Tariq Sharif; Ccielab@Groupstudy. Com
> Subject: Re: Is ISL on 2610 possible?
>
>
> 2610 cannot do ISL.
>
> At 05:51 PM 2/15/01 +0000, Tariq Sharif wrote:
> >Has anyone got ISL on 2610 working? Fastether NM is
> recognized & commands
> >(int f1/0.1, encap isl 1 etc) accepted but can't do router
> on a stick VLAN
> >interrouting.
> >
> >Have got the same card working in 3620 (same configs). Just
> curious if poss
> >on 2610. Cisco web says can't, but commands are picked up....
> >
> >Many thanks & regards.
> >
> >Tariq Sharif
> >
> >
> >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 13 2002 - 10:28:50 GMT-3