Talk:LAN switching

How about "LAN Switching" or "LAN/WAN Switching" (or some other adjective). This article is way to specific for such a general title. Bellhead 19:44, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looking through the article, it seems to be about how to use packet switches in LANs. Thus it could be named as "packet switching equipment", "LAN switching", "packet switchers" or some such thing. What belongs at the current name is a disambiguator, or perhaps just a redirect to switch. Hmm, I think there's a formal procedure or template for recommending a name change. Some months ago I simply renamed "reed relay" to wire spring relay and wrote a new reed relay article but that was a case where the old article was simply misidentified. This more subtle error should be treated more circumspectly.Jim.henderson 14:19, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Same as network switch article?

What is the relationship between LAN switching and what a network switch does? If they are not identical, the article should specify how they relate. If they are identical, would it make sense to merge the two articles? Riick 17:07, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I too am unsatisified. We could say, this article is more specific, and is about doing it, while the other is more general, and about the tools that do it. There are topics in which this distinction deserves separate articles, as in bicycle and cycling but I don't think it's such a good idea for this one. So, if someone thinks the current situation is a bad thing and needs fixing, and knows better than me how to fix it, then I recommend fixing it.

One caution however, the other article is better written than this one, and should not be messed up by simply dumping the contents of this one there. Or vice versa. Better to add, a sentence or paragraph at a time, the good parts of this one into the appropriate sections of that one, over a period of days or weeks. When that article contains all the information worth saving, that's when this one should be reduced to a redirect. And of course, as an alternative, someone who thinks it needs fixing can instead modify both articles to make it all clear. Jim.henderson 01:28, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article is badly written

Just one example amongst many: "Hardware-based packet forwarding" is not a benefit of layer 3 switching, though it is listed as such. The benefit is that hardware based packet forwarding, is maybe, faster, or possibly that it is more reliable, or some other such thing. The reader is left guessing, because all the author has told us is that he or she believes hardware based forwarding provides a benefit - but fails to tell us what that benefit is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.187.233.172 (talk) 12:43, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]