 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> You can argue about the names.
>
> There's no argument about the names. I won't let you
> call an apple an orange without pointing out that it
> really is an apple (although it may have an orange hue to it).
My point is I'm less worried about names and more worried about what it
actually *does*. ;-)
>> The point is it provides wildly more
>> functionallity than we actually need.
>
> Based on your description of your network, that sounds true.
> It's kind of like frying an egg with a nuclear reactor.
> (Well not to that extreme, but you catch my drift.)
> Have you asked them why they opted for the more expensive Cisco units?
They want everybody to use the same brand and model of... well,
everything actually. And Cisco is undeniably the best brand on the market...
As for why the multiple submets... er... I have no idea.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 15:07:55 +0000, Invisible <voi### [at] dev null> wrote:
>Cisco Catalyst 3560.
I just watched the "Video Data Sheet" at
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/hw/switches/ps5528/ for the device. It's quite
interesting how the video features the Senior Product Manager speaking
English with a very heavy French accent, to the point that he is almost
incomprehensible. It's good that the video is subtitled.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> Then it's not a switch, is it?
In most situations, a router is something that directs packets based on
an ISO level-3 address (i.e., an IP address) and a switch is something
that directs packets based on a level-2 address (i.e., a MAC address).
Nothing says a switch can't do active routing jobs.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
It's not feature creep if you put it
at the end and adjust the release date.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 11:45:50 +0000, Invisible wrote:
> A hub is little more than an amplifier. A switch contains actual control
> electronics. That much is true. However, a switch still does the same
> *job* as a hub - it just does it better. There still isn't anything that
> needs to be "configurated". [But, as I found out, these switches are
> actually routers.]
A switch limits the collision domain, which is good for performance but
bad for network monitoring tasks. Many of the Cisco switches of the last
several years (and other "smart" switches, for that matter) have
management interfaces that let you view traffic counters and other
diagnostic information to help you isolate problems. Not to mention port
mirroring (as Cisco calls it) to allow you to use your copy of Wireshark
to view all the traffic seen on another port on the switch for diagnostic
purposes.
Because the collision domain is restricted, there's also buffering
components and elements to eliminate collisions nearly completely (or
completely).
A lot of the newer switches on the market also include authentication
smarts, so only authorized devices can be plugged into the network.
802.11x authentication (I think is what is used) can be used against
directory service data stores as well, providing a high degree of
security in environments that need it.
What kind of switches are they? Some switches identify as being layer 3
switches (in the OSI model), but some newer ones will also do layer 4
switching, which also increases the complexity of the component. Many
times, a L4 switch can be thought of as a router, even though it really
isn't (a router connects one subnet to another).
Some switches also include smarts for VLANs, which limit the broadcast
domain as well as the collision domain limiting that a dumb switch will
do.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 12:54:23 +0000, Invisible wrote:
> No, but the fact that it's looking at (and changing) IP headers does.
Routers are not the only components that do that.
> Besides, the fact remains: We don't need this.
You may not think so, but maybe the folks at HQ have some ideas that they
haven't told you about. Or things like VOIP, which while you may not
need it there, can significantly reduce calling charges overseas. Think
Skype.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 13:41:26 +0000, Invisible wrote:
> The device I'm looking at is routing traffic between different IP
> networks, which requires looking not only at Ethernet headers but IP
> headers as well. That's a seperate level of complexity.
Doesn't reach the same level of complexity as a router, though. What
you're describing is a layer 4 switch, I believe.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 15:07:55 +0000, Invisible wrote:
> The point is it provides wildly more
> functionallity than we actually need.
Today, but when you spend money on networking infrastructure, you also
plan for what you might need in the future. Some places just buy the
biggest thing they can so it's not going to be obsoleted before the
depreciation timeframe expires.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> but some newer ones will also do layer 4 switching,
Layer four is transport layer. WTF is doing translation between
transport layers?
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
It's not feature creep if you put it
at the end and adjust the release date.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 20:29:33 -0800, Darren New wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> but some newer ones will also do layer 4 switching,
>
> Layer four is transport layer. WTF is doing translation between
> transport layers?
I dunno, but I know at work they just implemented a bunch of L4 switches,
and the technology has been around for some time...
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> They want everybody to use the same brand and model of... well,
> everything actually.
You know, that's not such a bad policy (when used reasonably).
Ask yourself this:
) What can this equipment do that you currently cannot do with your network?
) What would it be needed for?
) What might change over the next five years to make this equipment a
good choice?
--
...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
