3 ms·
> route when you can, switch only when you need to mantra Naive question: isn't switching faster than routing?
by Tempest1981 2y ago
> route when you can, switch only when you need to mantra
Naive question: isn't switching faster than routing?
- namibj 2y agoOnly at small scale: the flat MAC lookup quickly becomes more expensive than matching against a handful of (post-consolidation) routing prefixes. E.g. in their setup only the switch the hosts are directly plugged in needs to be aware of the individual hosts; all other switches/routers only look at it with a granularity no finer than this access switch. And at some point even coarser.
- londons_explore 2y agoAll 'boring' packets are hardware switched/routed with no CPU involvement in everything bigger than your home cable router. For both switched and routed networks it's possible to build hardware that can route at the same speed as the ports, so in 2024 performance isn't really a reason to choose switched or routed. Cost might be though - I believe that for the same number of gigabits, hardware sold as a switch is substantially cheaper.
- namibj 2y ago500 routes are still cheaper than 50k MACs, though, but I might be off a little with the number threshold there. Market segmentation is a thing, sadly :(
- immibis 2y agoIt is; it also provides less control. Some networks do it one way and some do it the other way.