From: Chuck Church (ccie8776@rochester.rr.com)
Date: Tue Dec 17 2002 - 15:30:18 GMT-3
70+ 6500s? Wow, I can hear that Cisco stock price going up right now!
Yeah!
Chuck Church
CCIE #8776, MCNE, MCSE
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jake" <jakeczyz@yahoo.com>
To: "Chuck Church" <ccie8776@rochester.rr.com>; "Bob Sinclair"
<bsin@cox.net>; <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2002 12:17 PM
Subject: Re: Gigastack - What is the point?
> 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
> > > .
> > .
> __________________________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
> http://mailplus.yahoo.com
> .
.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Jan 17 2003 - 17:21:47 GMT-3