Hi, On Sat, Feb 05, 2011 at 12:35:48PM +0000, Nick Hilliard wrote: > [ 6500 ] > Personally, I'm not sad to see it replaced.
Well, neither am I - but then, I don't really want to buy three different
boxes to replace a single 6500... (with three different operating systems).
But we're not buying yet - for our bandwidth and port density needs, the
6500 is still a very good match, and we know most of the quirks by now
(most annoying is "show int acc" counters miscounting IPv6, slowwww CPU,
and lack of per-interface netflow for IPv6). And I *like* the 6500,
it's just amazingly robust. We even have a few running Sup2+CatOS,
perfect layer2 edge switch for 100M<->GE-channel aggregation.
gert
--
USENET is *not* the non-clickable part of WWW!
//www.muc.de/~gert/
Gert Doering - Munich, Germany g...@greenie.muc.de
fax: +49-89-35655025 g...@net.informatik.tu-muenchen.de
pgpOLDJWe1RyF.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ 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/
