[127513] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: SPANS Vs Taps
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Gary Gladney)
Thu Jul 1 17:27:39 2010
From: Gary Gladney <gladney@stsci.edu>
To: "Bein, Matthew" <mbein@iso-ne.com>, nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <EFBFF5360F0AA044AC59D2198E5EE4AA02D5BE78@EXCHANGEBE.iso-ne.com>
Date: Thu, 1 Jul 2010 17:27:04 -0400 (EDT)
Reply-To: gladney@stsci.edu
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
Depends on the the bunch of 100MB connections. On the down side, when aggregating using a Cisco switch is a limit on the number of switch ports you can aggregate. On the up side, you don't have to be concerned about another device between the switch and device you want to connect to.
Gary
Gary Gladney
Space Telescope Science Institute
Email: gladney@stsci.edu
Voice: 410.338.4912
Public Key: ldap://certserver.pgp.com
---- Original message ----
>Date: Thu, 1 Jul 2010 16:48:14 -0400
>From: "Bein, Matthew" <mbein@iso-ne.com>
>Subject: SPANS Vs Taps
>To: <nanog@nanog.org>
>
>As I was doing a design today. I found that I had a bunch of 100 MB
>connections that I was going to bring into a aggregation tap. Then I was
>thinking, why don't I use a switch like a Cisco 3560 to gain more
>density. Anyone run into this? Any down falls with using a switch to
>aggregate instead of a true port aggregator??
>
>
>
>Regards,
>
>
>
>Matthew
>
