I agree....
It seems everybody has fallen under the spell of Ethernet. There ARE other networking technologies out there which have not been "patched" over the years to make viable today. Ethernet was never designed to be redundant, spanning tree is merely a band-aid. As is almost every technology available for Ethernet.
Traffic management could have saved this network, Cisco's attempt at Quality of Service, really Class of service, may have made a difference.
To build two redundant Ethernet networks is ridiculous. If you are going to spend the money, do it right use a technology which was designed for the very, very large networks. Build a carrier class network. Use a technology like ATM build a redundant mesh.
ATM was designed from the ground up to allow for redundancy and Quality of Service, true Quality of Service. Redundant links will NOT be disabled, they will be used in a load sharing manner increasing backbone availability and capacity.
The problems are inherent with Ethernet. A enterprise network of this scale should not be built with a cookie cutter. Ethernet is great for a home network and small enterprise. But very large networks should look for alternative technologies.
It seems everybody has fallen under the spell of Ethernet. There ARE other networking technologies out there which have not been "patched" over the years to make viable today. Ethernet was never designed to be redundant, spanning tree is merely a band-aid. As is almost every technology available for Ethernet.
Traffic management could have saved this network, Cisco's attempt at Quality of Service, really Class of service, may have made a difference.
To build two redundant Ethernet networks is ridiculous. If you are going to spend the money, do it right use a technology which was designed for the very, very large networks. Build a carrier class network. Use a technology like ATM build a redundant mesh.
ATM was designed from the ground up to allow for redundancy and Quality of Service, true Quality of Service. Redundant links will NOT be disabled, they will be used in a load sharing manner increasing backbone availability and capacity.
The problems are inherent with Ethernet. A enterprise network of this scale should not be built with a cookie cutter. Ethernet is great for a home network and small enterprise. But very large networks should look for alternative technologies.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree.... It seems everybody has fallen under the spell of Ethernet. There ARE other networking technologies out there which have not been "patched" over the years to make viable today. Ethernet was never designed to be redundant, spanning tree is merely a band-aid. As is almost every technology available for Ethernet. Traffic management could have saved this network, Cisco's attempt at Quality of Service, really Class of service, may have made a difference. To build two redundant Ethernet networks is ridiculous. If you are going to spend the money, do it right use a technology which was designed for the very, very large networks. Build a carrier class network. Use a technology like ATM build a redundant mesh. ATM was designed from the ground up to allow for redundancy and Quality of Service, true Quality of Service. Redundant links will NOT be disabled, they will be used in a load sharing manner increasing backbone availability and capacity. The problems are inherent with Ethernet. A enterprise network of this scale should not be built with a cookie cutter. Ethernet is great for a home network and small enterprise. But very large networks should look for alternative technologies.
It seems everybody has fallen under the spell of Ethernet. There ARE other networking technologies out there which have not been "patched" over the years to make viable today. Ethernet was never designed to be redundant, spanning tree is merely a band-aid. As is almost every technology available for Ethernet. Traffic management could have saved this network, Cisco's attempt at Quality of Service, really Class of service, may have made a difference. To build two redundant Ethernet networks is ridiculous. If you are going to spend the money, do it right use a technology which was designed for the very, very large networks. Build a carrier class network. Use a technology like ATM build a redundant mesh. ATM was designed from the ground up to allow for redundancy and Quality of Service, true Quality of Service. Redundant links will NOT be disabled, they will be used in a load sharing manner increasing backbone availability and capacity. The problems are inherent with Ethernet. A enterprise network of this scale should not be built with a cookie cutter. Ethernet is great for a home network and small enterprise. But very large networks should look for alternative technologies.