Re: Bridges

[Grant Taylor <gtaylor@riverviewtech.net>]

On 08/19/10 11:21, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
> Routing as a concept remains hardware-agnostic.

Agreed.

> Otherwise you would have to tell me whether a bulk of 
> RFC1149-conforming pigeons do "routing" or "L3-switching". Absurd 
> comparison?

I believe layer 3 switching is a subset of the generic concept of routing.

I forgot how funny RFC 1149 was.  Thank you for the chuckle.  :-)

Seeing as how the RFC 1149 specifies Avian Carriers and the printing / 
scanning of data, I think it defines both layers 1 and 2.  Further, the 
RFC states that A.C. are a point to point technology.  (Where said 
points are is subject to change and storms.)

As such, I don't believe that A.C. do routing in any form at all.  I 
believe the routing is better left to the layer 2.5 / 3 human that is 
printing, duct taping, tossing, removing, and scanning of datagrams.

Directly, it is my belief that RFC1149-conforming pigeons don't do 
"routing", much less "L3-switching".

Nope, your comparison is not absurd.  Though I do think it does open an 
can of worms.  ;-)

> Optimized ICs surely existed before people started calling routing 
> l3-switching.

Quite possibly.

I can't recall when I first heard about layer 3 switching.  Though if we 
look at the technology of some older (mid to late 90's) higher end 
routers, they had switching planes in them.  So I'd say that l3 
switching (in a switch) is an evolution of technology and More's Law 
allowing said technology to come to the l3 wiring closet switch.

> Right... directly from the propaganda ministry. I can see the flaw in 
> that.

Hehe.  ;-)

Cisco may be the propaganda ministry, but most of their technical 
documentation is accurate.  Or at least what it's describing is often 
imitated by other vendors.  Common law standard any one?



Grant. . . .