nanog mailing list archives
RE: Transit LAN vs. Individual LANs
From: Owen DeLong <owen () delong com>
Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2006 21:23:16 -0800
--On February 25, 2006 8:09:22 PM +0000 "Christopher L. Morrow" <christopher.morrow () verizonbusiness com> wrote:
On Sat, 25 Feb 2006, Neil J. McRae wrote:> An argument could be made for individual VLANs to keep thingslike b- cast storms isolated. But I think the additional complexity will cause more problems than it will solve.Vlans will not stop all typres of broadcast storm.So, perhaps I missed the earlier explanation, but why use switched segments at all? if the purpose is to connect routers to routers putting something that WILL FAIL in the middle is only going to increase your labor costs later :( So, for router-router links, GE doesn't have to mean switched...
Very true. In fact, GE is even easier because part of the GE standard for UTP requires it to be Auto-MDI-Sensing (MDI vs MDI-X is handled automatically in ALL compliant GE/TP interfaces). Thus, you can use any eia-568[ab] cable, straight or crossed between them. (Note, USOC cables still won't work, it has to be 568a or 568b pairing) Owen -- If it wasn't crypto-signed, it probably didn't come from me.
Attachment:
_bin
Description:
Current thread:
- Transit LAN vs. Individual LANs Scott Weeks (Feb 24)
- Re: Transit LAN vs. Individual LANs Patrick W. Gilmore (Feb 25)
- RE: Transit LAN vs. Individual LANs Neil J. McRae (Feb 25)
- RE: Transit LAN vs. Individual LANs Christopher L. Morrow (Feb 25)
- RE: Transit LAN vs. Individual LANs Owen DeLong (Feb 25)
- Re: Transit LAN vs. Individual LANs Warren Kumari (Feb 27)
- Re: Transit LAN vs. Individual LANs goemon (Feb 27)
- RE: Transit LAN vs. Individual LANs Neil J. McRae (Feb 25)
- Re: Transit LAN vs. Individual LANs Patrick W. Gilmore (Feb 25)
- Re: Transit LAN vs. Individual LANs Mark Smith (Feb 25)
- Re: Transit LAN vs. Individual LANs Mark Smith (Feb 25)
- Re: Transit LAN vs. Individual LANs Stephen Sprunk (Feb 28)