what's better for performance - routed ports or vlan ports?

Unanswered Question
Jun 5th, 2007

What's better for performance - routed ports or Vlan ports?

I'm going to configure separate 6509 interfaces for ingress & egress traffic to/from a web-cache, interfaces on different subnet for legacy reasons.

What is the best for performance, routed ports or Vlan ports? or does it not matter?



I have this problem too.
0 votes
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Overall Rating: 3 (1 ratings)
royalblues Tue, 06/05/2007 - 21:17


The decision should be based on what exactly are you planning to do. If you do not want the VLAN to be extended then routed ports are the way to go.

If you want have different vlans configured and want intercommunication, VLAN interfaces or SVI's would be prefered

HTH, rate if it does


m.tapping Tue, 06/05/2007 - 21:25

Thanks for the reply Narayan.

I'd like to base the decision upon performance. If it's more efficient for the 6500 to switch to a Vlan port or a routed port will determine the outcome.


royalblues Tue, 06/05/2007 - 21:35

I dont think there would be any performance difference as all decisions would be performed on hardware


I remember hearing a Networkers session that when a bunch of interfaces go down, the routed interfaces drop immediately and the down is conveyed immediately to the control plane (routing process).

However, VLAN interfaces have a backoff mechanism that causes the control plane to be notified in increasingly longer intervals.

I can't verify this with actual documentation, but maybe someone else can point to some.

ariela Wed, 06/13/2007 - 00:26

Yes Jonathan,

because the device must check if another switchport for that VLAN (in access or in trunk) is up. The SVI goes down when all VLAN interfaces are down. In some cases something like "auto-tunnel" does the trick.




This Discussion