Agreed.. the distinction between the two layers is becoming somewhat more and more vague by the day, especially with companies like Ipsilon and with Cisco's integration of eclipse switching and/or the RSM into the Catalyst.. how the two layers interact is really the only importance to the IP packet. rob
At 05:00 PM 07/01/97 -0700, Robert Bowman wrote:
layer 2 vs. layer 3
tis like comparing a motorcyle to an automobile--both get you places but in fairly different ways
I shouldn't be contributing to this thread, but what the hell.
Its not really Layer 2 vs. Layer 3, its how to integrate the two layers and make it work. Mike O'Dell is fond of saying, "Pure Layer 3 routed networks are dead," and I can understand his point, although I don't necessarily agree with it. I do understand, and I think its important for everyone else to understand the point here.
Yes, they both get you there, but the pertinent summary to be drawn from this comparison is that 'you' are the IP packet, and you really don't care what the mode of transport is (e.g. frame-relay, leased point-to-point lines, ATM). Each provide a pipe. Some have more intrinsic flexibility than others (e.g. virtual circuits) and therefore represent a significant reason to employ a specific technology over another, given pricing, and geographic availability.
Again, IP packets don't really care if it's a motorcycle, an airplane, or an automobile (unless its a Harley :-).
It should also be noted that some technologies, such as frame-relay are used only in *topologically significant* places, ie. customer aggregation, for precisely these reasons. In some networks, frame-relay is used for customer aggregation, fast-ethernet is used in the PoP, and ATM is used in the wide-area (just an example).
- paul