From: Williams, Glenn (WILLIAMSG@xxxxxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Fri Dec 07 2001 - 11:50:47 GMT-3
Well, I guess, a little off the well designed network, (grin) I was thinking
a distribution layer designed layer 2 vs.. layer 3.
GW
-----Original Message-----
From: Larson, Chris (Contractor) [mailto:Chris.Larson@ed.gov]
Sent: Friday, December 07, 2001 8:38 AM
To: 'Williams, Glenn'; 'ccielab@groupstudy.com'
Subject: RE: Layer 2 Redundancy
Actually I have not heard that argument. It depends on what you are doing
and the requirements. We have a 6 switch layer 2 core that feeds our Layer 3
distribution switches and our L3 distribution swiches have layer 2
redundancy with our access switches but run HSRP to provide L3 redundancy to
the stations hanging of the layer 2 closet access switches.
I have never heard arguments against layer 2 redundancy. I believe in a well
designed high reliable network from end to end you would need a combination
of both layer 2 and layer 3 redundancy and they go hand in hand to produce a
healthy, available and efficient network.
-----Original Message-----
From: Williams, Glenn [ mailto:WILLIAMSG@PANASONIC.COM
<mailto:WILLIAMSG@PANASONIC.COM> ]
Sent: Friday, December 07, 2001 8:52 AM
To: 'ccielab@groupstudy.com'
Subject: Layer 2 Redundancy
Hi,
Is the major argument against layer 2 redundancy (vs. layer 3 & HSRP) the
potential for layer 2 loops and problems with spanning tree. So I take it
layer 3 is the best way to go in the industry.
Thanks
GW
<http://www.groupstudy.com/list/posting.html>
To unsubscribe from the CCIELAB list, send a message to
majordomo@groupstudy.com with the body containing:
unsubscribe ccielab
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 13 2002 - 10:32:40 GMT-3