From: Jake (jakeczyz@yahoo.com)
Date: Tue Dec 17 2002 - 14:17:53 GMT-3
Bob,
I totally agree with Chuck and with Ron's comments on the stacking density. There are
certainly companies that follow Cisco's advice and like to "future proof" their access
layer by popping 4000+ in (my building is getting 70+ 6500's at the access layer,
including a newly ordered dozen of the new 6513's for the server access block which are
freakin collosal!) But then again... these are the same people that are buying 10Gig and
SFM cards. [Normally this would make a geek smile, but 2 of these 1 port 10Gig modules
equal one year of my salary... need I say more]
But, I digress... the 3500XL and now 3550 families are nice access layer devices for
the price... with gigastack being a solid and cost-effective solution.
One word of caution... stay away from switch clustering!! We've always had major
problems with this feature.
HTH,
Jake
#9102
--- Chuck Church <ccie8776@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
> 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