On Mon, 26 Jan 2004, Alexei Roudnev wrote:
PS. How much ethernet ports do you have in the office? Do you have 100 K ports? If not, why do you need 128K MAC's? (I know only one case, when I need so much - some kind of DSL service...
I guess you're not into metro networking.
(just as performance - it have _enough_ performance). Btw, I believed that catalist swithes have not any limitations for the MAC tables (because they use memory _on demand_); where did you get this limitations? /I may be wrong here/
<http://www.cisco.com/en/US/customer/products/hw/switches/ps646/products_tech_note09186a0080094bc6.shtml> You have something like 16-24.000 entries which are shared between routes, QoS, mac adress table size etc. Default is 5k mac adress size on the 3550-24/48. For metro applications, this is not enough.
PPS. I do not know for sure, but 3550 should support traffic shaping, which makes bufferring. Technically, yes, CEF (with packet dropping) is not good to provide 2 Mbit by 100 Mbit link.
The 3550 doesnt support shaping of any kind, only policing (dropping packets, never buffer them). How can you advocate a switch which you seem to know so little about? -- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike@swm.pp.se