Low-end Layer 3 switch?
Bookmark this page:
 Yahoo!
 Google
 Windows Live
 del.icio.us
 digg
 Netscape
|
|
Posted by sphealey on February 14, 2006, 6:19 pm
Please log in for more thread options I need a very low-end Layer 3 switch (or router, but would prefer the faster speed). 4 ports would be sufficient; 8 or 16 would be great. 10/100 is also sufficient; no need for Gigabit. Does anyone know of such a device, either new or a model I should look for on the used market? Thanks. sPh | ||||
|
Posted by Rick Jones on February 15, 2006, 2:04 pm
Please log in for more thread options Just what is the difference between a "switch" doing things at the network layer and a "router" doing things at the network layer? I've always been of the understanding that stuff done at layer 3 is "routing" regardless of what the marketroids call the box. rick jones -- The glass is neither half-empty nor half-full. The glass has a leak. The real question is "Can it be patched?" these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not want them anyway... :) feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hp.com but NOT BOTH... | ||||
|
Posted by glen herrmannsfeldt on February 15, 2006, 1:59 pm
Please log in for more thread options
> Just what is the difference between a "switch" doing things at the
> network layer and a "router" doing things at the network layer? I know what I think the difference should be, though I don't know that anyone else has the same definition. I would say a layer 3 switch should have more special purpose hardware, such as would be expected in a layer 2 switch. A router is usually mostly software, with more or less conventional NICs and a COTS processor. I understand that one can run Linux on a Linksys WRT54G, for example. Similar to the way a layer 2 switch might have a processor to handle tasks other than packet forwarding, a layer 3 switch might have a similar processing function. Packet forwarding should be done without the involvement of the processor, or with minimal involvement, other than to update routing tables. -- glen | ||||
|
Posted by Rick Jones on February 15, 2006, 3:19 pm
Please log in for more thread options
>
>> Just what is the difference between a "switch" doing things at the
>> network layer and a "router" doing things at the network layer? > I know what I think the difference should be, though I don't know
> that anyone else has the same definition. > I would say a layer 3 switch should have more special purpose
> hardware, such as would be expected in a layer 2 switch. > A router is usually mostly software, with more or less conventional
> NICs and a COTS processor. So, implementation detail is more important than function? My understanding is that those big honking "core routers" from the likes of Cisco, Juniper, Foundry et al are very much special purpose hardware. > I understand that one can run Linux on a Linksys WRT54G, for
> example. It seems that one can run some variant of Linux on just about anything with a clock pulse :) > Similar to the way a layer 2 switch might have a processor to
> handle tasks other than packet forwarding, a layer 3 switch might > have a similar processing function. Packet forwarding should be > done without the involvement of the processor, or with minimal > involvement, other than to update routing tables. By that definition then the really high-end (and probably not quite so really high end) routers from the vendors would be switches. rick jones -- portable adj, code that compiles under more than one compiler these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not want them anyway... :) feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hp.com but NOT BOTH... | ||||
|
Posted by glen herrmannsfeldt on February 15, 2006, 2:42 pm
Please log in for more thread options
>>> Just what is the difference between a "switch" doing things at the
(snip)
>>> network layer and a "router" doing things at the network layer? >> I would say a layer 3 switch should have more special purpose
>> hardware, such as would be expected in a layer 2 switch. >> A router is usually mostly software, with more or less conventional
>> NICs and a COTS processor. > So, implementation detail is more important than function?
As with the old saying, form follows function. If you can do it with cheap hardware there is no point in using expensive custom hardware. As processors get faster, the dividing line will move. > My understanding is that those big honking "core routers" from the
> likes of Cisco, Juniper, Foundry et al are very much special purpose > hardware. Probably. The last time I opened a Cisco router (a lower end model, about 10 years ago.) I was surprised to see ordinary hardware. >> I understand that one can run Linux on a Linksys WRT54G, for
>> example. > It seems that one can run some variant of Linux on just about anything
> with a clock pulse :) How about the core router mentioned above? >> Similar to the way a layer 2 switch might have a processor to
>> handle tasks other than packet forwarding, a layer 3 switch might >> have a similar processing function. Packet forwarding should be >> done without the involvement of the processor, or with minimal >> involvement, other than to update routing tables. > By that definition then the really high-end (and probably not quite so
> really high end) routers from the vendors would be switches. Maybe. Though the people that buy them probably don't care what they are called as long as they work up to their specifications. -- glen | ||||
| Similar Threads | Posted |
| Low-end Layer 3 switch? | February 14, 2006, 6:19 pm |
| Layer 2 switch vs Layer 3 switch | October 5, 2007, 1:28 pm |
| HELP!A SURVEY ABOUT THE LAYER-3 SWITCH | February 17, 2006, 12:34 am |
| Layer 3 switch model? | March 30, 2007, 1:20 pm |
| MAC layer for a switch and a router | November 30, 2007, 4:25 am |
| Routing between VLANs using a Layer 3 Switch | March 24, 2005, 11:39 am |
| Placement of Layer 3 3COM switch query | May 31, 2005, 12:56 am |
| FS/FA: $160.00 Extreme Networks Summit48 Switch w/basic layer 3 (works great) 2944 | August 9, 2005, 1:31 pm |
| IP layer and layer 2 IGMP Snooping | June 7, 2008, 1:28 am |
| Layer 2 'Ping' | August 15, 2005, 5:22 pm |
| Re: Layer 2 'Ping' | August 15, 2005, 7:42 pm |
| want to ana;yze the data in MAC layer. | January 5, 2006, 9:52 pm |
| Re: layer-2 tracking | August 21, 2008, 1:05 pm |
| OSI Model - need the Terms for the Data Units at each Layer | February 26, 2005, 5:12 am |
| Layer-2 transparant ethernet encryption device | March 7, 2005, 1:56 pm |
> the faster speed).