Does the cascading rule apply to switches?|
|
|
Bookmark this page:
 Yahoo!
 Google
 Windows Live
 del.icio.us
 digg
 Netscape
|
|
||||||||||
|
Posted by Boe on March 27, 2006, 10:07 am
Please log in for more thread options
I remember with hubs you couldn't have more than a certain amount for a network segment. I am curiuos -with switches, you can connect many directly to one main switch (not daisy chaining) - is daisy chaining or direct to a main switch better? Is there a cascade rule for switches? Thanks | ||||||||||
|
Posted by Merv on March 27, 2006, 10:17 am
Please log in for more thread options > is daisy chaining or direct to a main switch better?
Direct is a LOT better from a troubleshooting perspective > Is there a cascade rule for switches?
Generally know as each port on an Ethernet switch is its own collision
domain ( this is not true of a repeating hub) The other consideration of course is spanning-tree network diameter in terms of hops | ||||||||||
|
Posted by Boe on March 27, 2006, 1:36 pm
Please log in for more thread options Thank you.
>> is daisy chaining or direct to a main switch better?
>
> Direct is a LOT better from a troubleshooting perspective > >> Is there a cascade rule for switches?
> Generally know as each port on an Ethernet switch is its own collision
> domain ( this is not true of a repeating hub) > > The other consideration of course is spanning-tree network diameter in > terms of hops > | ||||||||||
|
Posted by on March 29, 2006, 4:52 pm
Please log in for more thread options Depends on the switch.. the newer models like 3560 and the 3750 allow
for stacking and if properly cabled if a switch in the stack goes down the rest of the stack keeps running without a problem. The 3750s are really nice because if you telnet into them and configure them you see the entire port list of the stack vs the older stacks where you had to hit each switch to configure them. | ||||||||||
|
Posted by Merv on March 29, 2006, 6:02 pm
Please log in for more thread options
Matt.K.Mead@gmail.com wrote: > Depends on the switch.. the newer models like 3560 and the 3750 allow
> for stacking and if properly cabled if a switch in the stack goes down > the rest of the stack keeps running without a problem. My comments were rin relation to Ethernet ports; not to internal switch buses or the like. | ||||||||||
| Similar Threads | Posted |
| Does the cascading rule apply to switches? | March 27, 2006, 10:07 am |
| Cascading rule? | March 25, 2006, 5:24 am |
| Cannot apply ACL to fa0/5 | January 9, 2008, 12:07 pm |
| How to apply ACL to a management port (CSS) | January 4, 2006, 11:44 pm |
| How to apply several ACLs on the same interface - PIX. | June 22, 2005, 8:35 am |
| macro apply ... $AVID | October 24, 2006, 2:07 pm |
| Is there a "dry run" mode for access lists before apply | May 22, 2008, 6:47 am |
| ip access-group name in - does it apply to systems on the same subnet? | June 9, 2009, 6:52 pm |
| switches, spanning tree question regarding designated ports and switches | December 18, 2008, 6:42 am |
| Implicit rule PIX | November 29, 2005, 12:00 pm |
| How to set up a PAT rule on a Cisco 837 | January 14, 2006, 7:04 pm |
| translation rule | February 9, 2007, 10:51 am |
| PIX 501 Incoming rule creation | January 22, 2008, 3:54 pm |
| Cisco 871/SDM 2.2 Default Rule Problem | February 26, 2006, 3:50 pm |
| Cisco voice translation-rule | November 17, 2005, 8:00 pm |
|
Home Cabling GuideFinally, an instantly downloadable book that saves you thousands in home improvement dollars! Enjoy living in 21st century technology-advanced home while increasing its selling value and competitive advantage on the real estate market. Whether your cabling is for home office or high-tech leisure, you can wire your home yourself or learn "wirish" to speak with your cabling contractors in their language! Learn More |