From owner-freebsd-net Thu Apr 26 10:53:46 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from smtp1.sentex.ca (smtp1.sentex.ca [199.212.134.4]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A0A6337B423 for ; Thu, 26 Apr 2001 10:53:44 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from mike@sentex.net) Received: from simoeon.sentex.net (simeon.sentex.ca [209.112.4.47]) by smtp1.sentex.ca (8.11.2/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f3QHrVA83769; Thu, 26 Apr 2001 13:53:31 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from mike@sentex.net) Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20010426134003.040f2b60@marble.sentex.ca> X-Sender: mdtpop@marble.sentex.ca X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 13:47:04 -0400 To: sthaug@nethelp.no From: Mike Tancsa Subject: Re: number of interfaces and performance ? Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org In-Reply-To: <81010.988306356@verdi.nethelp.no> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20010424145602.05c353a0@marble.sentex.ca> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org At 07:32 PM 4/26/01 +0200, sthaug@nethelp.no wrote: >As long as you're just doing Ethernet, you might want to consider the >2948G-L3 as an alternative to a 3640. IP routing in hardware, 48 10/100 >ports and 2 Gigabit ports. *Way* more backplane bandwidth and pps than >the 3640. Con: No access lists on the 10/100 ports. > >We're using these as pure routers (no bridging), and they're working very >well. (We used to have the 2948G-L3 do bridging also, that did *not* work >very well.) Hmmm.. This does look interesting. Note that there is way more bandwidth than I need. Like I said, I am only going to push tops 30Mb/s through the thing. The cisco would certainly do the job, but I am still looking at 10 times the cost. If I need to spend the money I will, I just hate spending the money needlessly. ---Mike To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message