From: Troy Rader (troy@xxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Thu Feb 21 2002 - 23:22:31 GMT-3
Dave,
When you said "hybrid...less scalable", did you mean Native? If you did
mean Native, they have an "interface range" command that allows you to apply
interface changes to a range, similar to what can be done with CatOS. If
you did mean hybrid, I don't follow what you said. Could you elaborate?
Thanks,
Troy
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Siwula" <DSiwula@ditech.com>
To: "'Michael Kilpatrick'" <mjkilpat@yahoo.com>; <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2002 7:37 PM
Subject: OT: RE: 6500 Hybrid or Natural IOS
> Michael....
> I would say it depends. I always thought it would be best to keep the
> switching and routing independent of each other, which is why I like the
> traditional Cat OS. I have used this with msm's (using port channels) and
> msfc's. If you have not used the old cat os, then the hybrid would
probably
> be easier to configure. The hybrid is in my opinion, less scalable
though.
> For example, to configure switchports to be part of a specific vlan you
have
> to go into each interface. Just my thoughts....
> Dave
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael Kilpatrick [mailto:mjkilpat@yahoo.com]
> Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2002 5:27 PM
> To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
> Subject: OT: 6500 Hybrid or Natural IOS
>
> Getting ready to start testing with new 6500's.... interested in your
> opinion
> on the best operating mode to run these guys in: Hybrid or IOS?
>
> Thanks!
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 20 2002 - 13:46:30 GMT-3