[52380] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: layer 3 switch debate
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Charles Sprickman)
Fri Sep 27 16:09:25 2002
Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 16:08:19 -0400 (EDT)
From: Charles Sprickman <spork@inch.com>
To: Stephen Sprunk <ssprunk@cisco.com>
Cc: ipdude@cattle-today.com, <nanog@merit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <023301c26658$5c442440$ab876540@amer.cisco.com>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
Does anyone know who is actually running "switches" in the core? The only
example I'm aware of is Telocity, and I'm not sure if they are still doing
that. They use(d?) Foundry gear.
--
Charles Sprickman
spork@inch.com
On Fri, 27 Sep 2002, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>
> Thus spake "ip dude" <ipdude@cattle-today.com>
> > so it is your opinion that a Catalyst 6509 (i.e. Layer 3 switch) is equivalent
> to a 7206 or GSR? Of course, this is in regard to 'core' routing device in the
> middle of a national IP network. This network in question just happens to
> utilize a lot of GE LH interconnections.
>
> Different devices have different strengths and weaknesses; if they were
> equivalent, one of them wouldn't exist.
>
> I personally have no opinion on whether a Catalyst 6500 makes a good "core
> router" vs. a GSR. That depends on what best fits your technical and business
> requirements, your staff's experience, the features available, other devices in
> your network, etc. Nobody else can answer that question for you.
>
> S
>
