 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> I dunno, but I know at work they just implemented a bunch of L4 switches,
> and the technology has been around for some time...
Unless you're routing between the OSI stack and TCP or something, I just
can't imagine it isn't some marketing-speak for "application-layer
gateway" or something.
--
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 Sat, 12 Jan 2008 17:31:45 -0800, Darren New wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> I dunno, but I know at work they just implemented a bunch of L4
>> switches, and the technology has been around for some time...
>
> Unless you're routing between the OSI stack and TCP or something, I just
> can't imagine it isn't some marketing-speak for "application-layer
> gateway" or something.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Layer_4_switch
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Layer_4_switch
Oh. Cool. I guessed right. :-)
--
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 Sun, 13 Jan 2008 09:23:19 -0800, Darren New wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Layer_4_switch
>
> Oh. Cool. I guessed right. :-)
:-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> 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).
No, it's not really.
Or rather, it's a good policy if the thing you choose to standardise on
is a good choice. In this case, apart from the astronomical cost,
choosing Cisco is a pretty sensible choice (if a little overkill).
> ) What can this equipment do that you currently cannot do with your
> network?
I'm guessing it's possible to configure these routers so you can monitor
traffic from any node. [Not that I will be given the tools necessary to
do this.]
It should also be easier to set up strange network configurations
temporarily if the need arrises. [Again, I won't be allowed to do this.]
> ) What might change over the next five years to make this equipment a
> good choice?
Hopefully I won't be working here long enough to care...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo on Sat, 12 Jan 2008 00:35:13 -0000, Jim Henderson
<nos### [at] nospam com> did spake, saying:
> 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.
Or from the more practical view they needed 35, but get a discount if they
buy 50; so they justified the extra 15 by sending them to the UK :-)
--
Phil Cook
--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
