No, more likely having "big" cisco switch with Giga-Ether port(s)
costs so much that they didn't even think of it.. Check what cisco
WS-C2948G costs to you. 2x GE ports, 48x 10/100 BaseTX ports.
(No need to get those high-end WS-C5***, WS-C6***, or WS-C85**
series boxes.)
Of course they might not have had a visit from a marketroid over
last 3 months what that C2948G has been available, so perhaps they
just don't know of them...
With that kind of "middle-hardware" it does not matter that the
clients don't have GE ports.
Of course in real life I would use Ether Channel bonded group of
interfaces if I have a *large* number of clients, or more likely
just simply multiple interfaces with separate addresses, and DNS
round-robin (or manual setup) to give out those addresses to the
clients to distribute the load evenly among the interfaces.
(The Ether Channel does use *one* interface towards given MAC
address, so doing balancing by using separately addressed inter-
faces gives the same result -- possibly even better when making
balancing manually controlled, and thus possibly perfectly
evenly distributed.)
> --
> Alex
/Matti Aarnio <matti.aarnio@sonera.fi>
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/