From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Rick Jones Subject: Re: Bridges Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2010 10:10:51 -0700 Message-ID: <4C6D659B.3050900@hp.com> 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> <4C6D5EAB.6090509@riverviewtech.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <4C6D5EAB.6090509@riverviewtech.net> Sender: netfilter-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed" To: Grant Taylor Cc: Mail List - Netfilter It starts to stretch my DIMM wetware memory, but "switching" started being attached to devices doing routing around the time that switch vendors (layer2) were saying people should build fewer, flatter subnets and have the switch vendors' switches pass traffic around because "switching is faster than routing" Also asserted at the time was that "switching is simpler than routing." Toss-in a bit of keeping-up, as well as some vendors adding "routing" ability to their "switches" and poof, we have the bingo term L3 switching. Have it stick around long enough and one will end-up with the telephone dressers and hair sanitizers finding some hairs to split to differentiate between an "L3 switch" and an "L3 router" ... rick jones