Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Cisco Systems, Inc. (CSCO) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: StockMan who wrote (13285)	4/13/1998 12:57:00 PM
From: The Phoenix	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 77400

Stockman... Most routers at the edge of the LAN/WAN will. However for the core backbone ASIC based L3 switching, suffices. That is why even Cisco is thinking about a L3 switch (what a joke, after denying its viability all this time). You've got a problem with a company - even one as large as Cisco - steering their business based upon market factors or is it that you've simply got a problem with Cisco as a company? Gary

To: StockMan who wrote (13285)	4/13/1998 2:03:00 PM
From: Lerxst	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 77400

StockMan, To be fair, L3 routing switches still require a significant amount of software that is required to be stable and robust. Both Cisco and Bay know how to do this well. Routing switches move the forwarding path into hardware, but the actual route determination is still done on an off-the-shelf processor using software based OSPF, BGP4, RIP/RIP2, etc. Once the route is known, the hardware routing tables are updated and as long as the route remains active, packets using the route stay completely in hardware. For those who might not be aware, legacy routers used an off-the-shelf processor to perform both route determination and packet forwarding. As such, software and the processor were the primary bottleneck in packet forwarding performance. Lerxst Lerxst