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. . . .
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netfilter" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
