From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Grant Taylor Subject: Re: Bridges Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2010 11:41:15 -0500 Message-ID: <4C6D5EAB.6090509@riverviewtech.net> References: <4C6B10CA.4090604@abpni.co.uk> <4C6C55C8.5000905@riverviewtech.net> <4C6C65CD.6090707@plouf.fr.eu.org> <4C6CAA60.60808@riverviewtech.net> <4C6CDE4E.7000609@plouf.fr.eu.org> <4C6D44E3.7050608@riverviewtech.net> <4C6D5271.901@riverviewtech.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: netfilter-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed" To: Mail List - Netfilter 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. . . .