Posted by: Jason Tramer
bi-directional, Cisco, egress, HP, ingress, Linksys, port mirroring, port spanning
Now I am just go to prefix this critique with the following, I have never designed a switch or am not aware of the total cost to add features to a switch. That being said I have a question for HP, would it really cost that much more to put bi-directional port mirroring into your switches instead of just ingress port mirroring? Is there such a huge cost to it? I mean its already watching packets flow in one direction is it really hard to make it watch the packets go in the other direction?
I mean I can accept that the old 4104 I was working with can’t do it. It doesn’t make sense really that it wasn’t there in the first place but it’s old yeah whatever I get it. However the brand new 1700′s and 1800′s can’t do it. The 2510 doesn’t but the 2610 does? Here is the other issue, your documentation. Both the 1800 and the 2610 say the same exact same thing in regards to port mirroring and yet one does ingress only and the other does bi-directional. I had to go through 3 sales reps to find someone who knew that.
Here is the kicker, every single cisco switch supports bi-directional port mirroring, hell, even in the Cisco/Linksys small business line, for the switches that support port mirroring it is bi-directional not just ingress.
Why HP, why?