nanog mailing list archives

Re: SPANS Vs Taps


From: Gary Gladney <gladney () stsci edu>
Date: Thu, 1 Jul 2010 17:27:04 -0400 (EDT)

Depends on the the bunch of 100MB connections.  On the down side, when aggregating using a Cisco switch is a limit on 
the number of switch ports you can aggregate.  On the up side, you don't have to be concerned about another device 
between the switch and device you want to connect to.  

Gary


Gary Gladney
Space Telescope Science Institute
Email: gladney () stsci edu
Voice: 410.338.4912
Public Key: ldap://certserver.pgp.com


---- Original message ----
Date: Thu, 1 Jul 2010 16:48:14 -0400
From: "Bein, Matthew" <mbein () iso-ne com>  
Subject: SPANS Vs Taps  
To: <nanog () nanog org>

As I was doing a design today. I found that I had a bunch of 100 MB
connections that I was going to bring into a aggregation tap. Then I was
thinking, why don't I use a switch like a Cisco 3560 to gain more
density. Anyone run into this? Any down falls with using a switch to
aggregate instead of a true port aggregator?? 



Regards, 



Matthew 



Current thread: