[66800] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Any 1U - 2U Ethernet switches that can handle 4K VLANs?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Mikael Abrahamsson)
Mon Jan 26 03:59:11 2004
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 09:58:29 +0100 (CET)
From: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>
To: Alexei Roudnev <alex@relcom.net>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <02d401c3e3e9$86d818a0$6401a8c0@alexh>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
On Mon, 26 Jan 2004, Alexei Roudnev wrote:
> PS. How much ethernet ports do you have in the office? Do you have 100 K
> ports? If not, why do you need 128K MAC's? (I know only one case, when I
> need so much - some kind of DSL service...
I guess you're not into metro networking.
> (just as performance - it have _enough_ performance). Btw, I believed that
> catalist swithes have not any limitations for the MAC tables (because they
> use memory _on demand_); where did you get this limitations? /I may be wrong
> here/
<http://www.cisco.com/en/US/customer/products/hw/switches/ps646/products_tech_note09186a0080094bc6.shtml>
You have something like 16-24.000 entries which are shared between routes,
QoS, mac adress table size etc. Default is 5k mac adress size on the
3550-24/48. For metro applications, this is not enough.
> PPS. I do not know for sure, but 3550 should support traffic shaping, which
> makes bufferring. Technically, yes, CEF (with packet dropping) is not good
> to provide 2 Mbit by 100 Mbit link.
The 3550 doesnt support shaping of any kind, only policing (dropping
packets, never buffer them). How can you advocate a switch which you seem
to know so little about?
--
Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike@swm.pp.se
