From: Don (seadon@attbi.com)
Date: Wed Dec 18 2002 - 13:02:18 GMT-3
Last time I used them gigastacks are full duplex as long as you only use one
port. They only fall back to half duplex if you use the 2nd port. Once you
use the 2nd port they are no longer point to point either.
Don
----- Original Message -----
From: "P729" <p729@cox.net>
To: "Bob Sinclair" <bsin@cox.net>; <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
Sent: Monday, December 16, 2002 7:09 PM
Subject: Re: Gigastack - What is the point?
> The gigastack GBICs are quite a bit cheaper than the full-blown ones,
> however there are caveats. For example, the gigastack channel is
half-duplex
> (although it is supposedly point-to-point) and I've been advised by Cisco
> not to run anything requiring QoS (in my case, VoIP) over it.
>
> Regards,
>
> Mas Kato
> https://ecardfile.com/id/mkato
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Bob Sinclair" <bsin@cox.net>
> To: <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
> Sent: Monday, December 16, 2002 5:53 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 - 17:21:48 GMT-3