 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible <voi### [at] dev null> wrote:
> (It's a switch? What's
> to configure? It's a passive component...)
Wikipedia:
"Low-end network switches appear nearly identical to network hubs, but
a switch contains more "intelligence" (and comes with a
correspondingly slightly higher price tag) than a network hub. Network
switches are capable of inspecting data packets as they are received,
determining the source and destination device of that packet, and
forwarding it appropriately. By delivering each message only to the
connected device it was intended for, a network switch conserves
network bandwidth and offers generally better performance than a hub."
That sounds to me like being more than just a passive component (unlike
a dumb hub which just forwards blindly everywhere)...
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
>> Au contrare, I'd have to be a *genius* to think up something that
>> means that *I* no longer have any work to do. ;-)
>
> Recruit a trainee IT dude?
I would think there would probably still be more work than the two of us
can get through...
But I take your point: If we hire, say, six trainee IT people, once I
finish training them all I wouldn't have much work to do.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> (It's a switch? What's
>> to configure? It's a passive component...)
>
> Wikipedia:
>
> "Low-end network switches appear nearly identical to network hubs, but
> a switch contains more "intelligence" (and comes with a
> correspondingly slightly higher price tag) than a network hub. Network
> switches are capable of inspecting data packets as they are received,
> determining the source and destination device of that packet, and
> forwarding it appropriately. By delivering each message only to the
> connected device it was intended for, a network switch conserves
> network bandwidth and offers generally better performance than a hub."
>
> That sounds to me like being more than just a passive component (unlike
> a dumb hub which just forwards blindly everywhere)...
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.]
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> 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".
Oh yes there is.
I have a Cisco Catalyst 2950 sat here that has a serial port connection for
configuration.
For a start you can configure security on a per-port basis, ie limit access
to MAC address etc.
Then you can make rules for dropping packets, based on MAC address, IP
address etc. Ie you could prevent the sockets in your conference room from
seeing your mail server unless a known MAC address was plugged in.
You can also have it notify you if an unknown MAC address appears on the
switch.
And a load of QoS stuff.
We also have our VoIP network going through the same switch as our data
network, this needs to be configured too.
They're far from simple boxes.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 11:44:24 +0000, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>But I take your point: If we hire, say, six trainee IT people, once I
>finish training them all I wouldn't have much work to do.
Well not IT work. :)
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
> For a start you can configure security on a per-port basis, ie limit
> access to MAC address etc.
>
> Then you can make rules for dropping packets, based on MAC address, IP
> address etc. Ie you could prevent the sockets in your conference room
> from seeing your mail server unless a known MAC address was plugged in.
>
> You can also have it notify you if an unknown MAC address appears on the
> switch.
>
> And a load of QoS stuff.
>
> We also have our VoIP network going through the same switch as our data
> network, this needs to be configured too.
>
> They're far from simple boxes.
Then it's not a switch, is it?
A switch is a device that just connects network nodes together. What
you're describing is a firewall and/or router.
Either way, we don't need any of the stuff you're describing.
[I notice HQ is very keen to implement VoIP though, even though we don't
need it. On further investigation, it turns out that while the UK
already has a perfectly good telephone system, HQ doesn't. So it would
be more accurate to say that HQ needs VoIP...]
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> They're far from simple boxes.
>
> Then it's not a switch, is it?
Cisco call it a switch.
> A switch is a device that just connects network nodes together.
Not according to Wikipedia:
"Network switches are capable of inspecting data packets as they are
received, determining the source and destination device of that packet, and
forwarding it appropriately"
The fact that you can configure these rules in complex ways and on a per
port basic doesn't mean it becomes a router - it's still a switch.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
>>> They're far from simple boxes.
>>
>> Then it's not a switch, is it?
>
> Cisco call it a switch.
Yes. I noticed. ;-)
>> A switch is a device that just connects network nodes together.
>
> Not according to Wikipedia:
>
> "Network switches are capable of inspecting data packets as they are
> received, determining the source and destination device of that packet,
> and forwarding it appropriately"
>
> The fact that you can configure these rules in complex ways and on a per
> port basic doesn't mean it becomes a router - it's still a switch.
No, but the fact that it's looking at (and changing) IP headers does.
Besides, the fact remains: We don't need this.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> No, but the fact that it's looking at (and changing) IP headers does.
Don't think my switch changes any IP headers, it just either routes them
somewhere or doesn't based on a set of rules.
I thought a switch just dealt with stuff in one network address space, eg
you use it to simply provide enough sockets for everyone to connect into
something else, and it just send unmodified packets to the right place. A
router however connects two different networks together, and has things like
port forwarding, NAT, modifying the IP headers etc.
Or maybe I'm completely off track as I'm no expert, that's just based on my
experience with working with things labelled as "routers" and "switches".
> Besides, the fact remains: We don't need this.
Didn't this come up before when you told us about this? I'm sure everyone
explained to you some of the benefits of the more pricey switches. Was your
post just because you were surprised how configurable a switch can be?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
>> No, but the fact that it's looking at (and changing) IP headers does.
>
> Don't think my switch changes any IP headers, it just either routes them
> somewhere or doesn't based on a set of rules.
>
> I thought a switch just dealt with stuff in one network address space,
> eg you use it to simply provide enough sockets for everyone to connect
> into something else, and it just send unmodified packets to the right
> place. A router however connects two different networks together, and
> has things like port forwarding, NAT, modifying the IP headers etc.
>
> Or maybe I'm completely off track as I'm no expert, that's just based on
> my experience with working with things labelled as "routers" and
> "switches".
The idea is that a hub just forwards everything, whereas a switch looks
at the Ethernet headers and attempts to make an intelligent choice about
which way to forward [defaulting back to forwarding everywhere if it
doesn't know which way is the correct way].
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.
>> Besides, the fact remains: We don't need this.
>
> Didn't this come up before when you told us about this? I'm sure
> everyone explained to you some of the benefits of the more pricey
> switches. Was your post just because you were surprised how
> configurable a switch can be?
Well, you said "my device can do X, Y and Z". I was just noting that we
don't need to be able to do any of those things. That's all.
All we need is a device to connect some nodes together...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
