LAN design best practice: “Bridges are ideally used in environments where there are several well-defined workgroups.” Is this statement accurate in classic Layer-2 segmentation scenarios?

Introduction / Context:
Before ubiquitous Layer-3 switching and VLANs, bridges (and later multiport bridges known as switches) were widely used to segment Ethernet LANs. The goal was to reduce collision domains, improve throughput, and keep traffic localized within workgroups while maintaining a single IP subnet or broadcast domain as needed.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Multiple, well-defined workgroups exist (for example, Accounting, Engineering, and Sales).
• Traffic is heavier within each workgroup than between workgroups.
• A Layer-2 device (bridge/switch) can learn MAC addresses and forward frames selectively.

Concept / Approach:

A bridge filters intra-segment traffic and forwards only frames destined for MACs on other segments. When workgroups are well-defined, segmentation minimizes unnecessary traffic between groups and reduces collisions (in shared media) or switch fabric load (in switched media). This preserves a unified Layer-3 view (same subnet) while offering performance and fault isolation benefits at Layer-2.

Step-by-Step Solution:

Verification / Alternative check:

Performance measurements in bus Ethernet eras demonstrated notable improvements after segmenting by workgroup. Modern switches inherit this benefit and add VLANs for finer control.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:

False: Ignores the key benefit of selective forwarding and traffic localization that workgroup-based segmentation provides.

Common Pitfalls:

Assuming bridging equals routing. Bridges operate at Layer-2 and do not split broadcast domains; for broadcast control you need VLANs or routers.

Final Answer:

True