What I want from a blade chassis switch
Marco d'Itri
* 802.1q[0] (VLANs).
* 802.1ax[1] (link aggregation) between the pair of switches in a
chassis.
* 802.17[2] or another simple Ethernet ring protocol, but I can live
with a decent 802.1d[3] implementation (STP) as well.
* IGMP and MLD snooping, while not yet a mandatory requirement, would
be appreciated.Why link aggregation? It is the only simple solution for
having complete fault tolerance without configuring the STP in the
servers (which is annoying, because Linux does not implement portfast)
or even worse OSPF.
That's it. I do not need routing protocols or even L3 routing at all,
just a simple switch. But apparently the vendors would rather sell me
an high end device...
[0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IEEE_802.1Q
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Link_aggregation
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resilient_Packet_Ring
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IEEE_802.1D
Permalink: http://blog.bofh.it/debian/id_345
whiplash
> * 802.1q[0] (VLANs).
> * 802.1ax[1] (link aggregation) between the pair of switches in a
> chassis.
> * 802.17[2] or another simple Ethernet ring protocol, but I can live
> with a decent 802.1d[3] implementation (STP) as well.
> * IGMP and MLD snooping, while not yet a mandatory requirement, would
> be appreciated.Why link aggregation? It is the only simple solution for
> having complete fault tolerance without configuring the STP in the
> servers (which is annoying, because Linux does not implement portfast)
> or even worse OSPF.
Rotfl, immagino che ciò di cui parlavamo altrove non funzioni come
atteso...
Marco d'Itri
>Rotfl, immagino che ciￜ di cui parlavamo altrove non funzioni come
>atteso...
Dovrebbe funzionare ma mi tocca portare lo STP fino agli host, e ne
potrei fare a meno se solo gli switch avessero feature effettivamente
utili.
--
ciao, | Those people who think they know everything
Marco | are a great annoyance to those of us who do. (Isaac Asimov)