nanog mailing list archives
Re: 10GE access switch router
From: Bill Woodcock <woody () pch net>
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2004 08:33:08 -0700 (PDT)
On Tue, 28 Sep 2004, Deepak Jain wrote: > Just a note, if you want redundant 10GE uplinks you need to get two of > these and stack them. The stacking interface does not reduce the amount > of switching bandwidth to the front ports IIRC. ...and the stacking interface is actually pretty lousy, from our testing. We were anticipating really liking it, but we haven't touched it again, since our lab work. Obviously it precludes hot-swappability, but beyond that, using it wipes any preexisting configuration on all but the first box (and out of two, I don't know how to predict which it will decide is first, in advance), and it leaves the port-numbering screwed up on any boxes that have used it, in perpetuity. -Bill
Current thread:
- RE: Earthquake in Northern California, (continued)
- RE: Earthquake in Northern California Dave Hilton (Sep 28)
- Re: Earthquake in Northern California Joe Hamelin (Sep 28)
- 10GE access switch router Frederic NGUYEN (Sep 28)
- Re: 10GE access switch router Robert Blayzor (Sep 28)
- Re: 10GE access switch router Mikael Abrahamsson (Sep 28)
- Re: 10GE access switch router Robert Blayzor (Sep 29)
- Re: 10GE access switch router Mikael Abrahamsson (Sep 29)
- Re: Earthquake in Northern California Joe Hamelin (Sep 28)
- RE: Earthquake in Northern California Dave Hilton (Sep 28)
- Re: 10GE access switch router John V. Messina (Sep 28)
- Re: 10GE access switch router Bill Woodcock (Sep 28)
- Re: 10GE access switch router Deepak Jain (Sep 28)
- Re: 10GE access switch router Bill Woodcock (Sep 29)
- Re: 10GE access switch router Robert A. Hayden (Sep 29)
- Re: 10GE access switch router Scott McGrath (Sep 30)