Since you are from Cisco...so it is your opinion that a Catalyst 6509 (i.e. Layer 3 switch) is equivalent to a 7206 or GSR? Of course, this is in regard to 'core' routing device in the middle of a national IP network. This network in question just happens to utilize a lot of GE LH interconnections. --- "Stephen Sprunk" <ssprunk@cisco.com> wrote:
IP Community:
When designing an all IP network requiring mostly Ethernet interfaces, the logical conclusion is to specify layer 3 switches (instead of routers). The cost
Thus spake "ip dude" <ipdude@cattle-today.com> per port and functionality requirements make a layer 3 switch the perfect choice. However, the rule of thumb in the IP community is that routers are superior to layer 3 switches and should be utilized instead, especially when considering core type functionality.
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.
"switch" is a marketing term meaning fast, nothing more. Any device that operates at Layer 3 is a router by definition. Therefore, "Layer 3 switch" means "fast router".
Now think about your question again.
S
_____________________________________________________________ Get your own free Ranch eMail and Classified Ads at http://cattletoday.com _____________________________________________________________ Select your own custom email address for FREE! Get you@yourchoice.com w/No Ads, 6MB, POP & more! http://www.everyone.net/selectmail?campaign=tag
Thus spake "ip dude" <ipdude@cattle-today.com>
so it is your opinion that a Catalyst 6509 (i.e. Layer 3 switch) is equivalent to a 7206 or GSR? Of course, this is in regard to 'core' routing device in the middle of a national IP network. This network in question just happens to utilize a lot of GE LH interconnections.
Different devices have different strengths and weaknesses; if they were equivalent, one of them wouldn't exist. I personally have no opinion on whether a Catalyst 6500 makes a good "core router" vs. a GSR. That depends on what best fits your technical and business requirements, your staff's experience, the features available, other devices in your network, etc. Nobody else can answer that question for you. S
Does anyone know who is actually running "switches" in the core? The only example I'm aware of is Telocity, and I'm not sure if they are still doing that. They use(d?) Foundry gear. -- Charles Sprickman spork@inch.com On Fri, 27 Sep 2002, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
Thus spake "ip dude" <ipdude@cattle-today.com>
so it is your opinion that a Catalyst 6509 (i.e. Layer 3 switch) is equivalent to a 7206 or GSR? Of course, this is in regard to 'core' routing device in the middle of a national IP network. This network in question just happens to utilize a lot of GE LH interconnections.
Different devices have different strengths and weaknesses; if they were equivalent, one of them wouldn't exist.
I personally have no opinion on whether a Catalyst 6500 makes a good "core router" vs. a GSR. That depends on what best fits your technical and business requirements, your staff's experience, the features available, other devices in your network, etc. Nobody else can answer that question for you.
S
Pardon the interruption of White noise on the channel.. But, if anyone clueful at JUNO.COM is abroad, please contact me offline. I now return you to the usual. Thanks In Advance!
participants (4)
-
Charles Sprickman -
ip dude -
Richard Irving -
Stephen Sprunk