nanog mailing list archives
Re: 1GE L3 aggregation
From: Mark Tinka <mark.tinka () seacom mu>
Date: Sat, 18 Jun 2016 13:05:37 +0200
On 16/Jun/16 22:27, Saku Ytti wrote:
I'm not saying it's bad solution, I know lot of people do it. But I think people only do it, because L3 at port isn't offered by vendors at lower rates.
A lot of people did it because because there really wasn't a cheap, dense solution until about 2010. And even then, the traditional strategy had become so entrenched that running IP all the way in the Access was such a foreign concept which was most certainly a lot more expensive than incumbent Layer 2-based Access models. I feel this has since changed with the current offerings from Cisco, Juniper and Brocade. The problem now is how to scale the low-speed port density up, as well as add 10Gbps port density, without increasing the cost or size of the platforms. Mark.
Current thread:
- Re: 1GE L3 aggregation, (continued)
- Re: 1GE L3 aggregation Baldur Norddahl (Jun 20)
- Re: 1GE L3 aggregation Mark Tinka (Jun 20)
- Re: 1GE L3 aggregation David Charlebois (Jun 22)
- Re: 1GE L3 aggregation Mark Tinka (Jun 22)
- Re: 1GE L3 aggregation Owen DeLong (Jun 22)
- Re: 1GE L3 aggregation Mark Tinka (Jun 22)
- Re: 1GE L3 aggregation Owen DeLong (Jun 22)
- Re: 1GE L3 aggregation Mark Tinka (Jun 22)
- Re: 1GE L3 aggregation Owen DeLong (Jun 22)
- Re: 1GE L3 aggregation Baldur Norddahl (Jun 23)
- Re: 1GE L3 aggregation Mark Tinka (Jun 18)
- Re: 1GE L3 aggregation Mark Tinka (Jun 18)
- Re: 1GE L3 aggregation Baldur Norddahl (Jun 18)
- Re: 1GE L3 aggregation Mark Tinka (Jun 20)
- Re: 1GE L3 aggregation James Jun (Jun 18)
- Re: 1GE L3 aggregation Saku Ytti (Jun 19)
- Re: 1GE L3 aggregation Mark Tinka (Jun 20)
- Re: 1GE L3 aggregation Mark Tinka (Jun 19)
- Re: 1GE L3 aggregation Saku Ytti (Jun 17)
- Re: 1GE L3 aggregation Radu-Adrian Feurdean (Jun 18)