From: Halaska, David (David.Halaska@xxxxxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Thu Mar 01 2001 - 12:27:46 GMT-3
One drawback to dot1q is that it does not tag the native vlan. Its better
for your native vlan to be a bogus vlan if using dot1q. ISL encapsulates
the packet where dot1q actually alters the packets itself and runs a new CRC
on the packet. ISL is Cisco proprietary but I think other companies like
Lucent have tried to implement it. However, some Cisco switch platforms
were made by companies that Cisco bought, so they only run dot1q.
Hope this helps
David
-----Original Message-----
From: andrew.2.shore@bt.com [mailto:andrew.2.shore@bt.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2001 8:29 AM
To: lm_nguyen@hotmail.com; ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: RE: ISL Trunking vs dot1q
WS2948G can only support dot1q trunks which is very starange as its a cisco
switch !
isl is better if you only have cisco switches. multiply spanning-tree
instances is the main reason to use it plus its the default :)
Andrew Shore
BTcd
Information Systems Engineering
Internet & Multimedia
-----Original Message-----
From: Blade Of Darkness [mailto:lm_nguyen@hotmail.com]
Sent: 01 March 2001 14:20
To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: ISL Trunking vs dot1q
Group,
Has anyone experience the pros and cons of isl vs dot1q? I am asking about
performance-wise and all equipments are ciscos. Why would one chose to use
isl instead of dot1q? And can the cisco WS2948G (only G)
use isl? I only see dot1q supported.
Thanks.
Blades of Darkness.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 13 2002 - 10:29:17 GMT-3