From: Conte, Charles (Charles.Conte@nasdaq.com)
Date: Tue Feb 01 2005 - 23:37:40 GMT-3
Are you saying this just to stir things up or you never read any
documentation on MLS, Layer 3 switching, etc. works? I really wanted
opinions based on facts. Have you read any documentation of the SUP720
and what gets performed in hardware? Even if it came from marketing,
normally they would back it up with facts using companies like Miercom.
They may leave things out, but they would not go out of their way to
lie. I really think it would be wrong for you to call anybody from
marketing liars.
This is an example what Cisco would do when companies use marketing
fluff:
http://www.cisco.com/application/pdf/en/us/guest/netsol/ns242/c666/ccmig
ration_09186a008015d4d2.pdf
Juniper marketing didn't lie, but they might have left the details out
when the sales engineers go sell their product. That being said where
have I ever put ACL over the L3 link. Thanks anyways. :) No flames only
facts. Maybe it was my fault for posting this e-mail. I apologize
ahead.
-----Original Message-----
From: phase90 [mailto:phase90@comcast.net]
Sent: Tuesday, February 01, 2005 8:22 PM
To: Balaji Siva; Conte, Charles
Cc: asadovnikov; ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: Re: Simple Design Question
So if I read this correctly, a packet going through 2 routing hops and a
2000 line [ turbo ] ACL
has the same latency as a packet going 0 hops via connected Vlan
interface.
I think you've been
talking to the Cisco marketing group too long!
phase90
----- Original Message -----
From: "Balaji Siva" <bsivasub@gmail.com>
To: "Conte, Charles" <Charles.Conte@nasdaq.com>
Cc: "phase90" <phase90@comcast.net>; "asadovnikov"
<asadovnikov@comcast.net>; <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 01, 2005 7:38 PM
Subject: Re: Simple Design Question
> Yes that is correct. There is no speed penalty for L2 or L3 switching.
> For example on cat4k, it is all done in hw asic and if the packet is
> not routed, that function is "no opearation".. So whether you turn on
> routing/acl/qos, it all is same.
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, 1 Feb 2005 19:34:32 -0500, Conte, Charles
> <Charles.Conte@nasdaq.com> wrote:
> > Hello Phase,
> >
> > My reason would be to avoid spanning-tree. With Layer 3
> > switching there is practically no difference in latency.
Spanning-tree
> > is a lot harder to troubleshoot in situations of a loop. I like the
> > document below on how it talks about some aspects of spanning tree.
I
> > guess everything has the "it depends" attached to it. :)
> >
> >
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/tech/tk389/tk621/technologies_tech_note09186a
> > 00800951ac.shtml
> >
> > CISCO DOCUMENTATION:
> > High-end Cisco Layer 3 switches are now able to perform this second
> > function, at the same speed as the Layer 2 switching function. There
is
> > no speed penalty in introducing a routing hop and creating an
additional
> > segmentation of the network.
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: phase90 [mailto:phase90@comcast.net]
> > Sent: Tuesday, February 01, 2005 7:17 PM
> > To: asadovnikov; Conte, Charles; ccielab@groupstudy.com
> > Subject: Re: Simple Design Question
> >
> > Yes but what if your access switch / router is one hop from your
core,
> > why
> > would you route that hop and have the additional latency in the
routing
> > process?
> >
> > Jerry
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "asadovnikov" <asadovnikov@comcast.net>
> > To: "'Conte, Charles'" <Charles.Conte@nasdaq.com>;
> > <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
> > Sent: Tuesday, February 01, 2005 12:57 AM
> > Subject: RE: Simple Design Question
> >
> > > 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 - 08:51:16 GMT-3