nanog mailing list archives
Re: SPANS Vs Taps
From: Gary Gladney <gladney () stsci edu>
Date: Thu, 1 Jul 2010 17:27:04 -0400 (EDT)
Depends on the the bunch of 100MB connections. On the down side, when aggregating using a Cisco switch is a limit on the number of switch ports you can aggregate. On the up side, you don't have to be concerned about another device between the switch and device you want to connect to. Gary Gary Gladney Space Telescope Science Institute Email: gladney () stsci edu Voice: 410.338.4912 Public Key: ldap://certserver.pgp.com ---- Original message ----
Date: Thu, 1 Jul 2010 16:48:14 -0400 From: "Bein, Matthew" <mbein () iso-ne com> Subject: SPANS Vs Taps To: <nanog () nanog org> As I was doing a design today. I found that I had a bunch of 100 MB connections that I was going to bring into a aggregation tap. Then I was thinking, why don't I use a switch like a Cisco 3560 to gain more density. Anyone run into this? Any down falls with using a switch to aggregate instead of a true port aggregator?? Regards, Matthew
Current thread:
- SPANS Vs Taps Bein, Matthew (Jul 01)
- Re: SPANS Vs Taps Gary Gladney (Jul 01)
- Re: SPANS Vs Taps Darren Bolding (Jul 01)
- Re: SPANS Vs Taps Ricky Beam (Jul 01)