router vs switch..

Hi all,

"Theoretically" can we have a WAN with switches only?
What I think is that with switches we can have a WAN, but it will have
a very bad performance (cause of large broadcast domain!)
Unfortunately, in most of the books they don't explain in details why
router was invented? They just mention that when you need to connect
two LANs then you need a router, which is not 100% accurate statement.
So my question again, forgetting about QoS issues, how Large can
switches span a network?

Thanx in advance,

On 4 Jan 2007 07:37:44 -0800, (E-Mail Removed) wrote:

>Hi all,
>
>"Theoretically" can we have a WAN with switches only?
>What I think is that with switches we can have a WAN, but it will have
>a very bad performance (cause of large broadcast domain!)
>Unfortunately, in most of the books they don't explain in details why
>router was invented? They just mention that when you need to connect
>two LANs then you need a router, which is not 100% accurate statement.

Sorry but it is an accurate statement. You need to understand what a
network is, what address ranges are, etc., and then you will
appreciate why a router is used (and needed).

>So my question again, forgetting about QoS issues, how Large can
>switches span a network?

Can you restate that as a sensible question? Switches usually are 24
ports each (large ones) and most quality ones have the ability to
'stack' to add more ports.


>
>Thanx in advance,

PeterD wrote:
> On 4 Jan 2007 07:37:44 -0800, (E-Mail Removed) wrote:
>
> >Hi all,
> >
> >"Theoretically" can we have a WAN with switches only?
> >What I think is that with switches we can have a WAN, but it will have
> >a very bad performance (cause of large broadcast domain!)
> >Unfortunately, in most of the books they don't explain in details why
> >router was invented? They just mention that when you need to connect
> >two LANs then you need a router, which is not 100% accurate statement.
>
> Sorry but it is an accurate statement. You need to understand what a
> network is, what address ranges are, etc., and then you will
> appreciate why a router is used (and needed).
>
> >So my question again, forgetting about QoS issues, how Large can
> >switches span a network?
>
> Can you restate that as a sensible question? Switches usually are 24
> ports each (large ones) and most quality ones have the ability to
> 'stack' to add more ports.
>
>
> >
> >Thanx in advance,

If your answer is kind of rude, then I don't need it. And please
understand the Question before you answer it. It seems that you did not
get the question even.
Anyway thank you for the try.

On 4 Jan 2007 11:22:20 -0800, (E-Mail Removed) wrote:

> PeterD wrote:
>> On 4 Jan 2007 07:37:44 -0800, (E-Mail Removed) wrote:
>>
>>>Hi all,
>>>
>>>"Theoretically" can we have a WAN with switches only?
>>>What I think is that with switches we can have a WAN, but it will have
>>>a very bad performance (cause of large broadcast domain!)
>>>Unfortunately, in most of the books they don't explain in details why
>>>router was invented? They just mention that when you need to connect
>>>two LANs then you need a router, which is not 100% accurate statement.
>>
>> Sorry but it is an accurate statement. You need to understand what a
>> network is, what address ranges are, etc., and then you will
>> appreciate why a router is used (and needed).
>>
>>>So my question again, forgetting about QoS issues, how Large can
>>>switches span a network?
>>
>> Can you restate that as a sensible question? Switches usually are 24
>> ports each (large ones) and most quality ones have the ability to
>> 'stack' to add more ports.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>Thanx in advance,
>
> If your answer is kind of rude, then I don't need it. And please
> understand the Question before you answer it. It seems that you did not
> get the question even.
> Anyway thank you for the try.

PeterD's answer was not "rude" and shows a better understanding of the
capabilities of routers vs switches than your questions. You should not
criticize someone trying to help you.

Good luck now in getting a better response.

FedUp wrote:
> On 4 Jan 2007 11:22:20 -0800, (E-Mail Removed) wrote:
>
> > PeterD wrote:
> >> On 4 Jan 2007 07:37:44 -0800, (E-Mail Removed) wrote:
> >>
> >>>Hi all,
> >>>
> >>>"Theoretically" can we have a WAN with switches only?
> >>>What I think is that with switches we can have a WAN, but it will have
> >>>a very bad performance (cause of large broadcast domain!)
> >>>Unfortunately, in most of the books they don't explain in details why
> >>>router was invented? They just mention that when you need to connect
> >>>two LANs then you need a router, which is not 100% accurate statement.
> >>
> >> Sorry but it is an accurate statement. You need to understand what a
> >> network is, what address ranges are, etc., and then you will
> >> appreciate why a router is used (and needed).
> >>
> >>>So my question again, forgetting about QoS issues, how Large can
> >>>switches span a network?
> >>
> >> Can you restate that as a sensible question? Switches usually are 24
> >> ports each (large ones) and most quality ones have the ability to
> >> 'stack' to add more ports.
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>>Thanx in advance,
> >
> > If your answer is kind of rude, then I don't need it. And please
> > understand the Question before you answer it. It seems that you did not
> > get the question even.
> > Anyway thank you for the try.
>
> PeterD's answer was not "rude" and shows a better understanding of the
> capabilities of routers vs switches than your questions. You should not
> criticize someone trying to help you.
>
> Good luck now in getting a better response.

Ok. I don't want to go into endless blaming... First of all, I said in
"theory". What I was trying to say in my question is that with switches
we can make kind of Star topology network that extends for a large
areas. And since SW works with MAC address only and they can send a
broadcast msgs to identify each other. Then we can build a network that
works.
Routers appeared to solve the problem of the huge broadcast issue, and
what they do is routing the packets to the best and the most efficient
route (and for that reason they make what they call IP and their
Network addresses). So routers are not used to connect different
networks, they were invented to make a better and scalable network.
I though that I will get a professional answer in this group. But
unfortunately I got disappointed.

Cheers,

On 4 Jan 2007 14:44:25 -0800, (E-Mail Removed) wrote:

> FedUp wrote:
>> On 4 Jan 2007 11:22:20 -0800, (E-Mail Removed) wrote:
>>
>>> PeterD wrote:
>>>> On 4 Jan 2007 07:37:44 -0800, (E-Mail Removed) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Hi all,
>>>>>
>>>>>"Theoretically" can we have a WAN with switches only?
>>>>>What I think is that with switches we can have a WAN, but it will have
>>>>>a very bad performance (cause of large broadcast domain!)
>>>>>Unfortunately, in most of the books they don't explain in details why
>>>>>router was invented? They just mention that when you need to connect
>>>>>two LANs then you need a router, which is not 100% accurate statement.
>>>>
>>>> Sorry but it is an accurate statement. You need to understand what a
>>>> network is, what address ranges are, etc., and then you will
>>>> appreciate why a router is used (and needed).
>>>>
>>>>>So my question again, forgetting about QoS issues, how Large can
>>>>>switches span a network?
>>>>
>>>> Can you restate that as a sensible question? Switches usually are 24
>>>> ports each (large ones) and most quality ones have the ability to
>>>> 'stack' to add more ports.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Thanx in advance,
>>>
>>> If your answer is kind of rude, then I don't need it. And please
>>> understand the Question before you answer it. It seems that you did not
>>> get the question even.
>>> Anyway thank you for the try.
>>
>> PeterD's answer was not "rude" and shows a better understanding of the
>> capabilities of routers vs switches than your questions. You should not
>> criticize someone trying to help you.
>>
>> Good luck now in getting a better response.
>
> Ok. I don't want to go into endless blaming... First of all, I said in
> "theory". What I was trying to say in my question is that with switches
> we can make kind of Star topology network that extends for a large
> areas. And since SW works with MAC address only and they can send a
> broadcast msgs to identify each other. Then we can build a network that
> works.
> Routers appeared to solve the problem of the huge broadcast issue, and
> what they do is routing the packets to the best and the most efficient
> route (and for that reason they make what they call IP and their
> Network addresses). So routers are not used to connect different
> networks, they were invented to make a better and scalable network.
> I though that I will get a professional answer in this group. But
> unfortunately I got disappointed.
>
> Cheers,

Here you go
http://www.webopedia.com/DidYouKnow/...switch_hub.asp

<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) ups.com...
> Hi all,
>
> "Theoretically" can we have a WAN with switches only?

If they are layer 3 switches, yes you can.
Layer 3 switches add a routing function, and will route across different
vlans

> What I think is that with switches we can have a WAN, but it will have
> a very bad performance (cause of large broadcast domain!)

You can break that down into different vlans

> Unfortunately, in most of the books they don't explain in details why
> router was invented? They just mention that when you need to connect
> two LANs then you need a router, which is not 100% accurate statement.

For the most part it is correct. But now there are layer 3 switches that
will work.

> So my question again, forgetting about QoS issues, how Large can
> switches span a network?

How many ports, how many vlans??
Can you rephrase this.
>
> Thanx in advance,
>

"PeterD" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> On 4 Jan 2007 07:37:44 -0800, (E-Mail Removed) wrote:
>
> >Hi all,
> >
> >"Theoretically" can we have a WAN with switches only?
> >What I think is that with switches we can have a WAN, but it will have
> >a very bad performance (cause of large broadcast domain!)
> >Unfortunately, in most of the books they don't explain in details why
> >router was invented? They just mention that when you need to connect
> >two LANs then you need a router, which is not 100% accurate statement.
>
> Sorry but it is an accurate statement. You need to understand what a
> network is, what address ranges are, etc., and then you will
> appreciate why a router is used (and needed).

Looks like a layer 3 switch will do what he is looking for.
>
> >So my question again, forgetting about QoS issues, how Large can
> >switches span a network?
>
> Can you restate that as a sensible question? Switches usually are 24
> ports each (large ones) and most quality ones have the ability to
> 'stack' to add more ports.
>
>
> >
> >Thanx in advance,

<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) ups.com...
> Hi all,
>
> "Theoretically" can we have a WAN with switches only?
> What I think is that with switches we can have a WAN, but it will have
> a very bad performance (cause of large broadcast domain!)
> Unfortunately, in most of the books they don't explain in details why
> router was invented? They just mention that when you need to connect
> two LANs then you need a router, which is not 100% accurate statement.
> So my question again, forgetting about QoS issues, how Large can
> switches span a network?
>
> Thanx in advance,

Hi again.
here are some links on layer 3 switching.
http://www.pcmag.com/encyclopedia_te...i=45957,00.asp
http://ckp.made-it.com/layer3switching.html

http://www.pulsewan.com/data101/laye...ing_basics.htm
>

<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) ups.com...
> Hi all,
>
> "Theoretically" can we have a WAN with switches only?
> What I think is that with switches we can have a WAN, but it will have
> a very bad performance (cause of large broadcast domain!)
> Unfortunately, in most of the books they don't explain in details why
> router was invented? They just mention that when you need to connect
> two LANs then you need a router, which is not 100% accurate statement.
> So my question again, forgetting about QoS issues, how Large can
> switches span a network?
>
> Thanx in advance,

Check this out as well.

http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/...dg4/nd2012.htm
>