From: crl (cisco@xxxxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Thu Mar 01 2001 - 22:39:26 GMT-3
An interesting use for that many VLANs is when you're using the Private VLAN
functionality found in the Cat6000 boxes.
Say you're a provider, you can lump 253 client hosts into one subnet, yet
isolate one organizations communications from another, while still allowing
all hosts to communicate with their default gateway and other hosts in their
"community".
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chuck Larrieu" <chuck@cl.cncdsl.com>
To: "Alan Basinger" <abasinge@swbell.net>; "Asbjorn Hojmark"
<Asbjorn@Hojmark.ORG>; "'Blade Of Darkness'" <lm_nguyen@hotmail.com>
Cc: <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2001 8:20 PM
Subject: RE: ISL Trunking vs dot1q
> Don't know, but according to the Cisco product book the 2948G-L3 supports
> both ISL and 802.1Q
>
> nice looking box. Seems to have a lot of very nice features. Might be an
> issue with the 22 gig backplane, although I am one of those who believes
> that much of the concern with backplane capacity is misplaced. Theoretical
> capacity versus expected real world capacity are two different things.
>
> Speaking of vlans, most of Cisco's devices currently support 1024 vlans.
> Someone here said Cisco is coming out with boxes capable of supporting
4096
> vlans.
>
> Anyone know of any real world situations where more than 150 vlans are in
> place? I don't mean Cisco Systems corporate headquarters, where they
> probably have thousands of vlans in place just to prove can be done, but
> real businesses using vlans for real business needs. I have a potential
> customer who claims to have 150 vlans operational. I have spoken to people
> with extensive experience in the field who claim they have never seen more
> than a dozen of so vlans in the real world.
>
> Chuck
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
Alan
> Basinger
> Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2001 4:10 PM
> To: Asbjorn Hojmark; 'Blade Of Darkness'
> Cc: ccielab@groupstudy.com
> Subject: RE: ISL Trunking vs dot1q
>
> Would the 2948L3 be built on the granite chipset?
>
>
> Alan
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com]On Behalf Of
> Asbjorn Hojmark
> Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2001 5:16 PM
> To: 'Blade Of Darkness'
> Cc: ccielab@groupstudy.com
> Subject: RE: ISL Trunking vs dot1q
>
>
> > Has anyone experience the pros and cons of isl vs dot1q?
> > I am asking about performance-wise and all equipments are
> > ciscos.
>
> I tend to use dot1q, because it's the standard. Also, dot1q is
> supported by all new switches while ISL is only supported by
> some.
>
> > Why would one chose to use isl instead of dot1q?
>
> If you need to transport token-ring in a trunk, ISL is the only
> way to go. Some older boxes (also from other manufacturers) don't
> support dot1q.
>
> > And can the cisco WS2948G (only G) use isl?
>
> No. All the Granite-based switches support only dot1q.
>
> -A
> --
> Heroes: Vint Cerf & Bob Kahn, Leonard Kleinrock, Robert Metcalfe
> Links : http://www.hojmark.org/networking/
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 13 2002 - 10:29:17 GMT-3