Date: Mon, 9 Dec 1996 17:01:19 -0500 (EST) From: Stefan Molnar <stefan@exis.net> To: Willem Jan Withagen <wjw@surf.iaehv.nl> Cc: ejs@bfd.com, isp@freebsd.org Subject: Re: 10Mb/100Mb switches Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.3.91.961209165656.23816N-100000@tarpon.exis.net> In-Reply-To: <199612092119.WAA12912@surf.iaehv.nl>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> Switching is effective when there is a lot of communication between many > different partners on the switch. PM's usually tend to talk to the router to > get the traffic out. So this will need to be a 100Mb interface. All the PMs are of course 10MB We are starting to test our PM3. But the good old PM2e with 30 USR couriers work nice. I do not think that livingston has a 100MB port for the PM3. If so I know that we will by a few apon relise. > Question is how dit you find out that the RIP's were killing you? > Guess you are doing static IP per account, where we are using static IP's > per port. We're using FreeBSD as router, and the interrupt-load does not > suggest that it is a very stressed segment. What we did was look at the TX and RX of some machines. It was insequence to the normal broadcast of RIP. And by each macnine broadcasting it started to hurt. Nope. the accounts are dynamic. The router is a Cisco 7010 with 100MB port. Stefan -------------------------------------------- Stefan Molnar Team Exis.Net stefan@exis.net Member EFF Slightly Silly Team OS/2 east-coast-ambassador@soda.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU "She turned me into a Newt! A Newt? I got better." -Monty Python --------------------------------------------
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.LNX.3.91.961209165656.23816N-100000>