Any 1U - 2U Ethernet switches that can handle 4K VLANs?

Mon Jan 26 16:52:06 UTC 2004

On Jan 26, 2004, at 2:04 AM, Alexei Roudnev wrote:

>
> 1) Cisco ISL is much better than urgly 802.1q - first of all,  it was
> designed many years before 802.1q. I am not even talking abiout those
> idiots, who designed 802.1q as a _spanning tree on the trunk level_, 
> which
> made many configurations (which we used with ISL ain 199x years) 
> impossble,
> and caused vendors to extend 802.1q.

Is it April 1st? ISL changes the size of packets, does it not? So know 
you have to deal with MTU issues. What happens when I want the biggest 
MTU possible? I know it is not much a difference in size, but for some 
people, size does matter.

I am quite happy with dot1q. My gripe is with poor spanning-tree 
implementations. I don't want a single spanning-tree for every vlan on 
a trunk... I like standards, but I am happy with Rapid-PVST. Just my 
feelings about the issue. I would never deploy ISL unless I had 
something like a 1900 that did not do dot1q

> 2) Of course, VLAN does not infer routing. But VLAN routing can be 
> provided
> on the switch fabric, effectively bypassing many traditional drawbacks 
> - see
> Cisco 6509, for example.

Are you talking about multilayer switching implementations? That is why 
C came out with dCEF. I costs, but if you want to do serious routing, 
damn if it ain't fast ;-)

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Brian Wallingford" <brian at meganet.net>
> To: "Alexei Roudnev" <alex at relcom.net>
> Cc: "ken emery" <ken at cnet.com>; <nanog at merit.edu>
> Sent: Sunday, January 25, 2004 10:17 PM
> Subject: Re: Any 1U - 2U Ethernet switches that can handle 4K VLANs?
>
>
>> On Sun, 25 Jan 2004, Alexei Roudnev wrote:
>>
>> :
>> :L3 switchiong is just term for idiots - it is ROUTING in old terms. 
>> So,
>> :VLAN's means _routing_.
>>
>> Um, no, VLAN does not infer routing.  802.1q and even Cisco's ugly
>> proprietary ISL both operate at layer two.
>>
>> As to "L3 switching" and the spin involved in such, it's an old,
>> predictable story, which we all wrote off as marketing drivel at 
>> least a
>> couple years ago...
>
>