From: David Siwula (DSiwula@xxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Fri Feb 22 2002 - 05:11:56 GMT-3
http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/cc/pd/si/casi/ca6000/tech/cat65_wp.htm
Troy....this should help you decide.....
Dave
-----Original Message-----
From: Troy Rader [mailto:troy@onenet.net]
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2002 7:12 PM
To: David Siwula; 'Michael Kilpatrick'; ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: Re: OT RE: RE: 6500 Hybrid or Natural IOS
I guess this was the original intent of Michael's first post, but anyone
with Native IOS experience on the 6500, please chime in. Good or bad. I'm
about to begin planning to replace to 5500's as core switches with 6509's.
In order to use the 6816 gig blade, I MUST use Native IOS. Just wondering
about some specific issues anyone has had.
Dave, can you elaborate at all on the weird problems you saw?
Since Native is where Cisco is headed, and CatOS will some day probably
disappear, we can count on Cisco to force us to Native, by offering hardware
that only works with Native, etc.
Thanks,
Troy
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Siwula" <DSiwula@ditech.com>
To: "'Troy Rader'" <troy@onenet.net>; "David Siwula" <DSiwula@ditech.com>;
"'Michael Kilpatrick'" <mjkilpat@yahoo.com>; <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2002 9:00 PM
Subject: OT RE: RE: 6500 Hybrid or Natural IOS
> Troy..
> That is exactly what I meant...
>
> "Native" IOS - When the switch supervisor and L3 device (MSFC, MSFC2)
> operate as one device.
>
> "Hybrid" IOS - When the switch supervisor and L3 device (MSFC, MSFC2)
> operate separately, running independent versions of software (CAT OS and
> IOS).
>
> I have just run into some weird problems with the "native" ios. It is
just
> a matter of personal preference and experience.
>
> Dave
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Troy Rader [mailto:troy@onenet.net]
> Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2002 6:23 PM
> To: David Siwula; 'Michael Kilpatrick'; ccielab@groupstudy.com
> Subject: Re: RE: 6500 Hybrid or Natural IOS
>
> 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