It is, of course, unethical for me to name names, but I do know of at least
one high school with 600 or so workstations, where the Cisco sales force
sold a 6509!
I am also currently working with a client ( large and profitable publicly
held company ) that is deploying 6509s in a number of warehouses as the
main machine for the computers used in that part of their operation. 150 or
so in each warehouse, they tell me, and quote "not that much traffic"
Actually, each warehouse will have a 6509 and a 2924, linked via fiber. The
customer was adamant that they wanted the 100 megabit link because gigabit
was too expensive. (!) I asked one of the engineers why they were going with
such high end equipment. I said I could get them excellent performance with
3548's at a lot lower cost, since they seemed concerned with expenses. The
guy kinda winked and told me the engineers pushed through the 6509 because
they wanted to be able to play with the advanced features.
Well, hey, I can relate to that. ;->
Chuck
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of
Peter A van Oene
Sent: Saturday, November 11, 2000 7:52 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Why not supernetting?
You guys must be integrators! She has a 5500 already, which although
somewhat dated, should be able to provide enough horsepower to route to 600
users in 5 or 6 subnets surely.
I highly expect her issue is not lack of hardware related. I expect there
is a misconfiguration or faulty cabling at some point along the line.
Really, this type of troubleshooting is hard to do offline however :)
*********** REPLY SEPARATOR ***********
On 11/11/2000 at 3:25 PM Brian W. wrote:
>I couldn't agree more, a multiport switch connected to the router, then
>another switch for each area of worksations is the way I would go.
>
> Bri
>
>On Fri, 10 Nov 2000, Donald B Johnson Jr wrote:
>
>> Your problem seems to be insufficient hardware.
>> Supernetting five subnets and putting 500 stations on one segement will
>> cripple your network.
>> Duck
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: jeongwoo park <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> To: Groupstudy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2000 2:13 PM
>> Subject: Why not supernetting?
>>
>>
>> > Hi All,
>> >
>> > I am looking for advice on a LAN performance issue. i
>> > am running primarily NT4 and win2K boxes on a 100Mbit
>> > UTP Ethernet LAN.
>> >
>> > my servers are on static IPs on one subnet while my
>> > clients pick up DHCP addresses (assigned out of my
>> > control) in any one of half a dozen other subnets.
>> > file transfer and printing performance between client
>> > and server is averaging 1Mbit/sec when computers are
>> > in different subnets. switch the same two computers to
>> > static IPs in the same subnet and throughput jumps to
>> > a respectable 30-70Mbit/sec. i need to keep the
>> > clients on DHCP as i don't have enough static IPs to
>> > go around for the subnet the servers are in.
>> >
>> > all clients and servers are attached to one of 5
>> > Allied Telesyn 8126XL 24-port managed switches. all 5
>> > of these "edge" switches connect to another switch of
>> > the same model with a 100Mbit multi-mode (1300
>> > nanometer) fiber uplink which connects to a Cisco
>> > Catalyst 5500 for our routing needs.
>> >
>> > When the clients are on different subnets the file
>> > transfers appear to take a long trip through the
>> > router with a huge performance penalty (1Mbit/sec).
>> > when the client and server are on the same subnet the
>> > packets do NOT appear to be routed (perhaps they are
>> > handled using ARP?) and the performance is very good.
>> > ping response times on both switches and routers is
>> > under 20ms. This is where I believe supernetting could
>> > be a solution to this slowness, because I think
>> > supernetting allows me to put all stations in the same
>> > subnet, witch avoids routing needs.
>> >
>> > I got some responses to my previous post from people
>> > saying that supernetting would slow down the speed
>> > because there would be too many stations in big
>> > broadcast domain, which contradicts what I am willing
>> > to do.
>> >
>> > Am i missing some key concepts here that might improve
>> > my understanding of this tragic performance?
>> >
>> >
>> > any help would be greatly appreciated.
>> >
>> > take care,
>> >
>> > jw
>> >
>> >
>> > __________________________________________________
>> > Do You Yahoo!?
>> > Thousands of Stores. Millions of Products. All in one Place.
>> > http://shopping.yahoo.com/
>> >
>> > _________________________________
>> > FAQ, list archives, and subscription info:
>> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
>> > Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>> _________________________________
>> FAQ, list archives, and subscription info:
http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
>> Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>
>_________________________________
>FAQ, list archives, and subscription info:
http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
>Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
_________________________________
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info:
http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
_________________________________
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
