From: James Ventre (messageboard@ventrefamily.com)
Date: Wed Jul 26 2006 - 11:31:03 ART
Guyler, Rik wrote:
> If most of the Cisco Account Managers I know had the chance,
> they'd be putting 6500s in the access layer. ;-)
6500s do dense POE deployments much better than 4500s. Those external
power shelves and other hacks are pretty suboptimal (on the 4500). QoS
is signifigantly better on a 6500 too. So, other than lining their
pockets, they do have some valid arguments for them.
James
Guyler, Rik wrote:
> Oh, I think it still is. We have 3 distribution blocks in our primary data
> center and the third one is comprised of redundant 6500/Sup720s. The first
> two, however, were put in some years ago and are comprised of the 4000/4500s
> I mentioned earlier. I wouldn't do that myself given a choice but honestly,
> these boxes have served well over the years. Of course, we're healthcare
> and just a little backwards so many of our server-type devices are still
> running 100Mb. Once we go fully to GigE then we may well just kill those
> 4ks.
>
> Funny you mention Cisco's declaration that the 6500 is the premier data
> center switch. If most of the Cisco Account Managers I know had the chance,
> they'd be putting 6500s in the access layer. ;-)
>
> Rik
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Aug 01 2006 - 07:13:48 ART