Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Cisco > why we need 'bridge'

Reply
Thread Tools

why we need 'bridge'

 
 
Mark
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-09-2011
Hi,

many layer2 ethernet equipment vendor, Cisco as example, have a concept (I
don't really know if it is correct to call it concept?) of a 'bridge', i.e.
on cisco CLI one needs to explicitly create bridge:

#conf t
#(config) bridge 1 protocol ieee
#interface fe0
#bridge-group 1
#interface fe1
#bridge-group 1
....

Why is it necessary ? As long as it is a switch, all the ports by default
are in switchable, or this allows to have a number of independent bridges
within one single physical device? Thanks in advance.

Mark


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Doug McIntyre
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-09-2011
"Mark" <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
>many layer2 ethernet equipment vendor, Cisco as example, have a concept (I
>don't really know if it is correct to call it concept?) of a 'bridge', i.e.
>on cisco CLI one needs to explicitly create bridge:

...
>Why is it necessary ? As long as it is a switch, all the ports by default
>are in switchable, or this allows to have a number of independent bridges
>within one single physical device? Thanks in advance.


This sounds suspiciously like homework already, so you only get a hint.

Its unlikely that somebody setting up a cisco would bridge two ethers
together, but they support other kinds..


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Mark
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-09-2011
"Doug McIntyre" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:4e6a61b7$0$74948$(E-Mail Removed). net...
> "Mark" <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
>>many layer2 ethernet equipment vendor, Cisco as example, have a concept (I
>>don't really know if it is correct to call it concept?) of a 'bridge',
>>i.e.
>>on cisco CLI one needs to explicitly create bridge:

> ..
>>Why is it necessary ? As long as it is a switch, all the ports by default
>>are in switchable, or this allows to have a number of independent bridges
>>within one single physical device? Thanks in advance.

>
> This sounds suspiciously like homework already, so you only get a hint.
>
> Its unlikely that somebody setting up a cisco would bridge two ethers
> together, but they support other kinds..


Thanks for reply. It's not a homework, although I'm student My guess
after some research was that cisco originally supported multiple
technologies (for ex. token ring, ethernet, fddi etc.), and it was naturally
to allow a customer to bridge these ports in a single bridging entity.

But I wasn't sure if my thoughts were right or wrong. Certainly I searched
cisco.com, but they don't give much theeoretical background in this item
though.


Mark


 
Reply With Quote
 
Doug McIntyre
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-11-2011
"Mark" <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
>Thanks for reply. It's not a homework, although I'm student My guess
>after some research was that cisco originally supported multiple
>technologies (for ex. token ring, ethernet, fddi etc.), and it was naturally
>to allow a customer to bridge these ports in a single bridging entity.


Indeed, WAN bridges was the primary use for bridge groups, not
necessarily LAN to LAN bridging..




 
Reply With Quote
 
Stephen
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-14-2011
On Fri, 9 Sep 2011 15:34:37 -0400, "Mark"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>"Doug McIntyre" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>news:4e6a61b7$0$74948$(E-Mail Removed) .net...
>> "Mark" <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
>>>many layer2 ethernet equipment vendor, Cisco as example, have a concept (I
>>>don't really know if it is correct to call it concept?) of a 'bridge',
>>>i.e.
>>>on cisco CLI one needs to explicitly create bridge:

>> ..
>>>Why is it necessary ? As long as it is a switch, all the ports by default
>>>are in switchable, or this allows to have a number of independent bridges
>>>within one single physical device? Thanks in advance.

>>
>> This sounds suspiciously like homework already, so you only get a hint.
>>
>> Its unlikely that somebody setting up a cisco would bridge two ethers
>> together, but they support other kinds..

>
>Thanks for reply. It's not a homework, although I'm student My guess
>after some research was that cisco originally supported multiple
>technologies (for ex. token ring, ethernet, fddi etc.), and it was naturally
>to allow a customer to bridge these ports in a single bridging entity.


there are even now some networks that need bridging and a router would
not have all interfaces on the same switch module for hardware L2
switching support - protocols like LAT have not died completely and
bridging OSI CLNS was common at 1 point in carrier networks for
managing SDH and similar kit

This is usually on a router between Ethernet LANs and WAN interfaces.

More recently Ethernet is taking over the high bandwidth WAN role, but
even there routers get used on the LAN to WAN border to allow QoS +
rate limiting etc in ways switches struggle with.

A network i used to work on used bridging between the loopback and ATM
PVCs for management traffic (i think - this is a while back)

finally
>
>But I wasn't sure if my thoughts were right or wrong. Certainly I searched
>cisco.com, but they don't give much theeoretical background in this item
>though.
>
>
>Mark
>

--
Regards

http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed) - replace xyz with ntl
 
Reply With Quote
 
Stephen
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-14-2011
On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 15:37:04 -0700, Aaron Leonard <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>>many layer2 ethernet equipment vendor, Cisco as example, have a concept (I
>>don't really know if it is correct to call it concept?) of a 'bridge', i.e.
>>on cisco CLI one needs to explicitly create bridge:
>>
>>#conf t
>>#(config) bridge 1 protocol ieee
>>#interface fe0
>>#bridge-group 1
>>#interface fe1
>>#bridge-group 1
>>...
>>
>>Why is it necessary ? As long as it is a switch, all the ports by default
>>are in switchable, or this allows to have a number of independent bridges
>>within one single physical device? Thanks in advance.
>>
>>Mark

>
>We have the concept of L2 ports (aka "switchports") and L3 ports ("routed
>interfaces".) The former ports naturally bridge (forward at layer 2) amongst
>themselves if they are configured to be in the same VLAN. The latter port
>flavor naturally route (forward at layer 3), but can be made to bridge if put
>into the same bridge-group as shown above.


Put multiple switch modules such as the HWIC-4ESWs into a Cisco router
and the ports within the module switch L2 locally, but the modules are
not connected at layer 2......
>
>In olden times, back when a variety of L3 protocols was prevalent, a Cisco
>router interface could be configured to route some subset of protocols (by
>configuring it with an L3 address in the given protocol), and then bridge
>other protocols (by putting the interface into a bridge-group.) Nowadays,
>with everyone running IPv4 everywhere, you use bridge-group to extend an
>IPv4 broadcast domain ("subnet"), and you use routed interfaces to delimit
>the broadcast domain.


Still got lots of OSI CLNS running for SDH and other management = note
carrier networks will be happily running kit well past the sell by
dates.
>
>The prevalence of switchports is the distinguishing mark of a device
>that we call a "switch"; the prevalence of routed interfaces is what
>causes us to call a device a "router". Although nowadays a device like
>the 881 has 4 switchports (Fa0..3) but only 1 routed port (Fa4), but is
>nonethleless called a "router" rather than a "switch" - go figure.
>
>I seem to recall that _Interconnections_ by Radia Perlman had a useful
>discussion of this sort of stuff.
>
>Aaron

--
Regards

(E-Mail Removed) - replace xyz with ntl
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
why why why why why Mr. SweatyFinger ASP .Net 4 12-21-2006 01:15 PM
findcontrol("PlaceHolderPrice") why why why why why why why why why why why Mr. SweatyFinger ASP .Net 2 12-02-2006 03:46 PM
Cisco 2611 and Cisco 1721 : Why , why , why ????? sam@nospam.org Cisco 10 05-01-2005 08:49 AM
Why, why, why??? =?Utf-8?B?VGltOjouLg==?= ASP .Net 6 01-27-2005 03:35 PM
Why Why Why You HAVE NO IDEA MCSE 31 04-24-2004 06:40 PM



Advertisments