OUCH- been there done that !!!!
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chuck Larrieu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2000 5:53 AM
Subject: Equipment needs - WAS: Why not supernetting?
> 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]
_________________________________
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
