From: Michael Breen (mbreen@xxxxxxxxx)
Date: Fri Jun 21 2002 - 12:50:54 GMT-3
Nope. The RSM doesn't program anything like the 3550 L3 does...
--MB
-----Original Message-----
From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com]On Behalf Of
Donald B Johnson Jr
Sent: Friday, June 21, 2002 8:24 AM
To: Kurt Kruegel; Prashanth
Cc: Carley, Charles; 'Bill Mckenzie'; ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: Re: Changes of lab=loss of $$
Here goes a stretch, if you have a 2924xl for layer 2 IOS like code and a
cat5/w rsm for layer3 IOS like code do you think that you functionally have
a 3550 broken into two parts.
Don
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kurt Kruegel" <kurt@cybernex.net>
To: "Prashanth" <prashanthcm@yahoo.com>
Cc: "Carley, Charles" <charlesc@aiinet.com>; "'Bill Mckenzie'"
<bmckenzie@hotmail.com>; <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
Sent: Friday, June 21, 2002 10:00 AM
Subject: Re: Changes of lab=loss of $$
> thanks,
> that's what i assumed
> the differences are mostly physical backplane .. etc
> and maybe some ios features.
> it's possible to use any vlan as managment , just shutdown vlan1
> and make a "vlan3" int or whatever.
> i've set up quite a few cluster's
>
> Prashanth wrote:
>
> > the only difference between the 3550s and the 3500 XLs
> > is the MLS cabability in the former. All of them
> > share the same Catalyst IOS code. The CLI does not
> > differ much...
> > the 3500XL switches can have only one 'management
> > vlan' both interface and line protocol up...the other
> > VLAN interfaces are not 'up' at the same time...
> >
> > infact if you can find a cheaper 2924XL - has the same
> > IOS..
> >
> > --- Kurt Kruegel <kurt@cybernex.net> wrote:
> > > as a cheaper alternative get a 3524xl or 3548xl
> > > (need 48 ports?)
> > > the os shouldn't be that far off from the 3550.
> > > i havent used a 3550 yet but there can't be much of
> > > a feature or command
> > > difference.
> > > ideas ?
> > >
> > > "Carley, Charles" wrote:
> > >
> > > > I am sure this thread will continue on for a while
> > > but this is what I think.
> > > > A new 3550 runs about $3k new from Cisco which is
> > > still much higher than a
> > > > used Cat 5000. It would seem to me that learning
> > > concepts on a 5000 (how to
> > > > do trunking, VLAN's, one arm routing) would still
> > > make sense and then you
> > > > can rent a day on a rack and nail the new syntax.
> > > I am sure that 3550's
> > > > will begin to show up before to long in the pay
> > > racks. I imagine Cisco
> > > > chose the 3550 over a 6500 to continue with there
> > > commitment to make lab
> > > > equipment reasonably affordable to most
> > > candidates. As for the 3920 I have
> > > > always thought it was a bad investment, I am using
> > > the 3920 simulation
> > > > software and I feel it will prepare me for
> > > anything that my be on the lab.
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Bill Mckenzie [mailto:bmckenzie@hotmail.com]
> > > > Sent: Friday, June 14, 2002 12:58 PM
> > > > To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
> > > > Subject: Changes of lab=loss of $$
> > > >
> > > > Here's a problem and I think quite a few people
> > > would agree with me that
> > > > have their lab between October and November 4th.
> > > It's almost not worth it to
> > > >
> > > > buy a Cat 5000 or Cisco 3920 for a home lab (even
> > > though you could probably
> > > > get a little better deal on one right now)
> > > because, what happens when you
> > > > try to sell it later? No one needs it that is
> > > taking their test after Nov.
> > > > 4th.
> > > >
> > > > I'm just moaning. Has anyone used the 3920
> > > simulation software available?
> > > >
> > > > Also, because by then I'm sure they will have
> > > replaced all the Cat 5000's
> > > > with the 3550's, does it use the same command set
> > > as a 3524 switch?
> > > >
> > > > Thanks in advance for any help,
> > > > Bill Mckenzie
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Jul 02 2002 - 08:12:39 GMT-3