Difficulty: Easy
Correct Answer: Incorrect — bridges help most when traffic remains local to each segment
Explanation:
Introduction:
Bridges (and switches) partition collision domains and filter frames so that local traffic stays local. The performance win appears when a significant share of communication is between stations on the same segment, reducing unnecessary transit across the bridge. If most traffic is destined for external segments, the bridge forwards a large fraction of frames anyway, yielding limited improvement.
Given Data / Assumptions:
Concept / Approach:
Bridges learn MAC-to-port mappings and forward only when necessary. If devices primarily talk to peers on their own segment, the bridge filters those frames and prevents them from crossing to other segments—improving overall throughput and reducing congestion elsewhere. Conversely, if most communication is to remote servers or other segments, almost all frames must traverse the bridge, diminishing the advantage.
Step-by-Step Solution:
1) Identify communication patterns: local-to-local vs. local-to-remote.2) Recall that bridges forward only inter-segment traffic and filter intra-segment traffic.3) Infer that maximum benefit occurs when intra-segment traffic is high.4) Conclude the statement “bridges help when most access is outside the local segment” is incorrect.
Verification / Alternative check:
Design guides emphasize grouping chatty hosts or client–server pairs on the same segment/VLAN to reduce uplink load and improve performance—bridging/switching then contains local conversations.
Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Common Pitfalls:
Placing servers remotely and expecting a bridge to solve congestion; moving servers or segmenting by usage often helps more.
Final Answer:
Incorrect — bridges help most when traffic remains local to each segment
Discussion & Comments