Don't really need the 7K.....you can run your 10G trunks to and existing 6500 or something else to do L3.
In the future you will supposedly be able to run your FEXs to the 7K and supposedly the next gen 5Ks will be able to do "more". I see the current topology good for very large datacenters. Pair of 7Ks at the core, pairs of 5Ks at the end of the row and pairs of 2Ks in each rack. Very scalable design. Currently the Nexus is not for everyone. Jason -----Original Message----- From: cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net [mailto:cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Livio Zanol Puppim Sent: Friday, February 12, 2010 9:38 AM To: Tony Varriale Cc: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Nexus 2000 vs Catalyst 4948 for access layer Ok... Let's try again, more simplyfied. Using a DC topology with Nexus family, I must have, for gigabit connectivity, Nexus 2000 -> Nexus 5000 -> Nexus 7000. Using traditional way I can have Catalyst 4948 -> Nexus 7000, saving 10G ports from Nexus 5000 for access. That's my only problem, loosing ports com 5000... Is it clear enought? Can you give me a good reason to use the first design? 2010/2/12 Tony Varriale <tvarri...@comcast.net> > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Livio Zanol Puppim" < >> livio.zanol.pup...@gmail.com> >> To: "Jason Plank" <jmpl...@gmail.com> >> Cc: "Cisco NSP ((E-mail))'" <cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net> >> Sent: Thursday, February 11, 2010 7:18 PM >> >> Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Nexus 2000 vs Catalyst 4948 for access layer >> >> > Brad, >> >> Can't I make "the cloud" with traditional switches (4948 for example)? >> > > You can call it what you'd like. > > > As I've said before, my only concern is that I'll loose A LOT of access >> ports >> on Nexus 5000 that could be used by servers with 10GE/FCoE. >> > > Ok, maybe I missed something. What are you trying to do? High density 1 > gig? 5k does that (with 2k). Cheap and layer 2 high density 10g? 5k does > that. > > > I'm expecting that 10G(with FCoE) will dominate the servers design, so my >> loss will be huge. >> > > It will be a large part of the future, no doubt. Your loss? > > > f Nexux 2000 could be attached directly to an Nexus 7000 (it is not quite >> dfficult to make that works) the deisgn would perfect fit for our needs... >> > > As I've stated before, there is no if. Not sure how many more times I have > to say it... > > tv > _______________________________________________ > cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp > archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/ > -- []'s Lívio Zanol Puppim _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/ *** NOTICE--The attached communication contains privileged and confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, DO NOT read, copy, or disseminate this communication. Non-intended recipients are hereby placed on notice that any unauthorized disclosure, duplication, distribution, or taking of any action in reliance on the contents of these materials is expressly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please delete this information in its entirety and contact the Amedisys Privacy Hotline at 1-866-518-6684. Also, please immediately notify the sender via e-mail that you have received this communication in error. *** _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
