On Thu, Sep 26, 2002 at 11:38:38AM -0700, ip dude wrote:
Does this rule of thumb still apply considering the modern layer 3 switches available? If not, why? What makes a layer 3 switch sub-standard to a pure router? Any quantitative analysis you could provide would be greatly appreciated.
Layer 3 is layer 3, whether you use a general purpose processor, a specialized asic, or a cam. A "layer 3 switch" is really just a product from a traditional switch vendor who wants to get into the "layer 3" market. They all forward millions of packets per second when the cams are programmed and things are simple, that means nothing. What sets a good vendor apart from a substandard vendor has very little to do with how well it forwards frames or packets in the lab. It is how they implement every routing protocol, cli, management functionality etc, CORRECTLY and reliably. It is how they handle real-life or exceptional conditions, like random-dst traffic which stress the initial route lookup and cam programming operations. There are a lot of companies who want to make core routers or layer 3 switches or whatever marketing calls them, but they almost all fail when it comes to implementing those pesky little things like routing protocols. In my opinion there are only two vendors who meet the test right now, Cisco and Juniper. If you think anyone else can correctly function as a core router, you don't have a real core, and all the koolaid in the world won't change that. :) -- Richard A Steenbergen <ras@e-gerbil.net> http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras PGP Key ID: 0x138EA177 (67 29 D7 BC E8 18 3E DA B2 46 B3 D8 14 36 FE B6)