RE: 2950 for the 2nd switch?

From: Aldo (febro@yahoo.com)
Date: Thu May 15 2003 - 14:41:37 GMT-3

• Next message: Jeongwoo Park: "RE: QoS"
• Previous message: G. R. Correia: "RE: Converting Custom Queue to CBWFQ"
• Maybe in reply to: Aldo: "2950 for the 2nd switch?"
• Next in thread: Leo Seto: "RE: 2950 for the 2nd switch?"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

Thanks for all of your input. It makes me think twice which feature that I
need for lab exam.

2950:
=====
(+) more QoS features
(+) more filtering capabilities
(+) same commands "stripped down version" as 3550
(+) supports "desirable" trunk mode

(-) No ISL!!!

2924:
=====
(+) supports both dot1q & ISL

(-) doesn't support "desirable" trunk mode
(-) doesn't have as much QoS features as 2950

2950 sounds good, but I need to choose between QoS features or ISL trunking!?

Is it fair/right to say that mastering QoS features on the switch is much
more important than trunking features?
Also, since 2950 is newer, I assume it offers better investment protection?
(correct me if I'm wrong)

• Next message: Jeongwoo Park: "RE: QoS"
• Previous message: G. R. Correia: "RE: Converting Custom Queue to CBWFQ"
• Maybe in reply to: Aldo: "2950 for the 2nd switch?"
• Next in thread: Leo Seto: "RE: 2950 for the 2nd switch?"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Jun 02 2003 - 15:13:43 GMT-3