From owner-freebsd-isp Thu Mar 25 3:48:45 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-isp@freebsd.org Received: from retribution.net (retribution.net [207.96.1.17]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6571714EF5 for ; Thu, 25 Mar 1999 03:48:43 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from vkhare@retribution.net) Received: from localhost (vkhare@localhost) by retribution.net (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id GAA05292; Thu, 25 Mar 1999 06:51:09 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 25 Mar 1999 06:51:09 -0500 (EST) From: Vikram Khare To: Dennis Cc: isp@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: RE: switch vs bridge In-Reply-To: <199903242319.SAA04541@etinc.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Wed, 24 Mar 1999, Dennis wrote: >hard-coded to specific segments) whereas a bridge generally learns them >from traffic. A switch should be immune to loops... >bridges ARE in fact switches, except they are vulnerable to broadcast storms >and loops. Switches have to forward broadcasts also (to make arps work) so Configuring redundant links without configuring spanning tree within a single vlan will lead to both of those problems if you're not careful. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-isp" in the body of the message