Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1998 00:39:42 +0100 (BST) From: Karl Pielorz <kpielorz@tdx.co.uk> To: Bill Fumerola <billf@chc-chimes.com> Cc: Tim Wolfe <tim@clipper.net>, "Jeffrey J. Mountin" <jeff-ml@mountin.net>, freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: IP Load balancing Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.05.9810090037130.15789-100000@caladan.tdx.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <Pine.HPP.3.96.981008132328.21428G-100000@hp9000.chc-chimes.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 8 Oct 1998, Bill Fumerola wrote: > On Thu, 8 Oct 1998, Tim Wolfe wrote: > > > Now this particular instance I spent about 5 minutes thinking of so I know > > there are tons of holes and/or better ways to do this. The point is, at > > Layer3, you get a measure of control over network flow and traffic > > structure.. > > Okay. Essentially, though, you either send using priorities based on MAC > addresses or IP addresses. Still, the packet can't get to a machine > faster, because the filtering is still the same. I do understand how > people would use the cost features, though there are software ways of > doing that. But a switch (i.e. nice, fast, cut-through if possible switch) can't route can it? - But a layer3 'switch' can route... i.e. it can direct traffic across WAN's where the MAC addresses become invalid/exchanged etc. ;-) I don't think switches can 'filter' per se anyway - theres very little they can do - unless there running in store and forward mode (in which case it see's the entire packet) - and that defeats the object of a switch (cross point connections etc. i.e. low latency / high throughput)... :-( Regards, Karl 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.BSF.4.05.9810090037130.15789-100000>