Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1998 10:52:02 -0400 (EDT) From: Bill Fumerola <billf@chc-chimes.com> To: "Jeffrey J. Mountin" <jeff-ml@mountin.net> Cc: freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: IP Load balancing Message-ID: <Pine.HPP.3.96.981008105105.21428D-100000@hp9000.chc-chimes.com> In-Reply-To: <3.0.3.32.19981008055721.00fff15c@207.227.119.2>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 8 Oct 1998, Jeffrey J. Mountin wrote: > Maybe it's just me or it's just how it works in a typical net environment, > but for all practical purposes layer 2 and layer3 switching are the same. > Most switches are layer 2, AFAIK. When running TCP/IP, machines on thet > network use arp to map the IP to the MAC. Only worth mentioning since > recently I did some checking on what Cicso offered with their various > models and I couldn't find any reference on the differences between layer 2 > and layer 3. Not my money, but paying more for a feature without any > details on the benefits... Also gives reason to your comment on the layer 3. Agreed, I'm quite willing to accept the many reasons why a switch is better then a hub, and I can't find a single reason why a level 3 switch has anything more then level 2, short of a higher price tag. Someone please prove me wrong, for my own sanity. - bill fumerola [root/billf]@chc-chimes.com - computer horizons corp - - ph:(800)252.2421 x128 / bfumerol@computerhorizons.com - BF1560 - "Logic, like whiskey, loses its beneficial effect when taken in too large quantities" -Lord Dunsany To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-isp" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.HPP.3.96.981008105105.21428D-100000>