* David Newman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-09-05 17:51]: > -----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.
switch, aka layer 2, yes. route, aka layer 3, no. not even under perfect conditions in case of teh small ones. -- Henning Brauer, [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] BS Web Services, http://bsws.de Full-Service ISP - Secure Hosting, Mail and DNS Services Dedicated Servers, Rootservers, Application Hosting - Hamburg & Amsterdam
