-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 9/5/07 2:01 AM, Henning Brauer wrote: > * David Newman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-09-05 00:59]: >>> Can any one comment on this ? Would it not be better to use some think >>> like a Cisco layer 3 GB switch. >> Most el cheapo gig switches will do the job without packet loss. > > you are beeing tricked by marketing terminology. > > layer 3 switches are routers. > > vendors use the term to.. well I dunno :) > > most so-called layer3 swicthes are regular layer 2 switches with a > little extra logic to be able to inspect IP headers and take the > "switching" (it is routing of course) decision based on that. > > Rule of thumb: they all suck. >
That's a statement of value, not of fact. The OP asked about switch throughput. Even the el cheapo ones you describe as sucky can forward packets at line rate with zero loss. They have many other problems -- execrable routing code, CLIs and GUIs written by idiots, and horrible hashing algorithms, to name a few -- but basic packet forwarding isn't one of them. That said, I share your allergy to the term "layer-3 switch." I don't use this meaningless marketing term. Switches switch; routers route. dn iD8DBQFG3swDyPxGVjntI4IRAkqkAJ93LmSLnpTft6j/sOZ/0bbdeBuSdQCfWENS gEH1SSQe1g0dxOaYp/+p+68= =loeJ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
