> А как обстоят дела на практике ? У меня есть информация, что при большом
> трафике вообще из свича обычный концентратор может получиться:
Дык это не у тебя есть информация, а байка про гусиные лапки.
>
> 2000-03-13-12:57:54 Aaron D. Turner:
> Ciscos have had troubles with packet leakage in strange
> circumstances as well; I seem to recall something about being able
> to unilaterally turn your switch port into an ISL port or something
> like that.
Если он в авто стоить то можно и переключить ;-)
А вообще не следует размещать ничего кроме админов в мэнеджмент влан
(обычно N1).
>
> I've checked this opinion with a techie at a major switch vendor,
Что за вендор то ?
> and they enthusiastically liked my statement: VLANs are a
> performance optimization, designed to help decrease the size of a
> broadcast domain to a fraction of a switch. They are intended to
> help improve flexibility, allowing the user to have multiple
> isolated broadcast domains in a single physical switch; with the
> high early price-per-port of switches, and the limited numbers of
> distinct sizes (e.g. 8-port, 12-port, 16-port, 32-port), being able
> to carve a larger switch up into VLANs was a big help for customers
> pricing reasonable configs, while trying to keep their traffic
> organized for performance reasons. But VLANs were always and solely
> a performance hack. Leaking packets between isn't a design failure
> of a VLAN unless the leakage consists of enough packets to have a
> performance impact. For security barriers, use separate boxes, or
"Покупайте больше наших свитчей!" ;-)
=============================================================================
"inet-admins" Internet access mailing list. Maintained by East Connection ISP.
Mail "unsubscribe inet-admins" to Majordomo@info.east.ru if you want to quit.
Archive is accessible on
