RE: Simple Design Question

From: asadovnikov (asadovnikov@comcast.net)
Date: Tue Feb 01 2005 - 02:57:16 GMT-3

I like the approach. If access switches are L3 capable you should run them
as routers not switches. Although there are always corner cases when L2 may
be better option, I strongly agree that benefits of avoiding L2 generally
greater then any potential downside.

Best Regards,
Alexei

-----Original Message-----
From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
Conte, Charles
Sent: Monday, January 31, 2005 7:29 PM
To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: OT:Simple Design Question

Hello,

            If MSFC's are available at the access-layer, can anybody
tell me why we wouldn't run L3 to the access layer if the primary and
secondary access switches are available in convenient locations? Also
for the attached gifs can anybody provide any opinions on why one
wouldn't extend L3 to the access instead of having L2 only Access
switches [Example 1 L3] V.S. [Example 2 L2]? I like avoiding L2 in any
situations that I can. I can understand if the requirement is to have
the vlan available at every switch to go with example 2, but if not it
wouldn't make sense to extend L2 everywhere. Any opinions appreciated!
Thanks!

Charles

[GroupStudy removed an attachment of type image/gif which had a name of
example_gif_2.gif]

[GroupStudy removed an attachment of type image/gif which had a name of
example_gif_1.gif]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Mar 03 2005 - 08:51:15 GMT-3