From: Chuck Church (ccie8776@rochester.rr.com)
Date: Mon Dec 16 2002 - 23:59:08 GMT-3
Bob,
Price is probably a major reason. Last time I checked, the Gigastacks
are cheaper than SX gbics. Also, a lot of companies stick with 2900 and
3500s for closets. 4000s and up are considered distribution and core level
switches, with a price to match. Price per port is much cheaper for 2900s
and 3500s than a 4006 with sup 2 and line cards. Since most networks tend
to grow rather than shrink, upgradibility is also a factor. Once you've
maxed out a 4003 or 4006, you've got a big cost to add another chassis.
With stackables, it's much cheaper. Of course there are networks out there
that justify a 4000 or higher at the access layer, but those are special
circumstances.
Chuck Church
CCIE #8776, MCNE, MCSE
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bob Sinclair" <bsin@cox.net>
To: <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
Sent: Monday, December 16, 2002 8:53 PM
Subject: OT: Gigastack - What is the point?
> Switch gods:
>
> Any of you folks installed gigastack 35xx or 29xx? I really don't see
much
> of an advantage to this technology, so I wonder what I am missing. Sure,
> you can manage a bunch of switches with one IP address through a graphical
> interface. BFD.
>
> The fast failover and minimal uplinks would be cool if you could stack
> multiple switches on different floors, but as I read the specs, the
switches
> must be within 1 meter of each other. If you need multiples of 48 ports
in
> one closet, why not just use a modular switch?
>
> I have read the docs on CCO, but I don't really see what does this
> technology really buys us, beyond a few corner cases. Any feedback or
links
> appreciated.
>
> Bob Sinclair
> CCIE #10427
> .
.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Jan 17 2003 - 17:21:47 GMT-3