I think the cheapest way to do the Cat5k stuff is:
2901 (basically a 5002, supervisor 1, 5213A (12 port 10/100) blade)
2926T (basically a 5002, supervisor 2, 5224 (24 port 10/100) blade)
cost on the 2901 is $1200 - $2000
cost on the 2926T is $1700 - $2500
I have also been quoted 5002's, supervisor 1, 5213 blade (essentially a
2901) for about $2200. All of these switches run the same exact IOS file.
Brian
On Sun, 12 Nov 2000, Carl Nohrden wrote:
> I have used
>
> The Catalyst 3548 uses the Cisco IOS command set, much like the Catalyst
> 2924XL.
>
> You might want to look into the Catalyst 2948G (not 2948G-L3) for the
> Catalyst OS command set. It works just like the Catalyst 5000 series
> without an RSM. Keep in mind that the 2948G does not support ISL trunking
> though; it only support 802.1Q trunking for your VLAN's).
>
> This would be a much more cost effective than procuring a 5xxx series box.
>
> Carl Nohrden, CCNA
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Butcher, Matthew" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "'Circusnuts'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Chuck Larrieu"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2000 8:02 AM
> Subject: Lot of talk about 3548; but is it a VLAN router like the 5000?
>
>
> > I did a search for router capability of the 3548 @
> >
> http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/cc/pd/si/casi/ca3500xl/prodlit/3500x_ds.htm
> > I did not seem like the "VLAN" command set like the 5xxx.
> > I have worked w/ the 3508g and it is Layer 2.
> > I have worked w/ the 2948G-L3 w/ IRB BVI Layer 2 routing and Port Channel
> > routing w/ sub interfaces Layer 3 routing.
> > I have passed the BCMSN exam but found myself grasping from my experiences
> > w/ these "poor man" 5xxx and 65xx switches. In my opinion it made the exam
> > harder; I still got 883.
> > Anyway now my company has taken an interest in my current lab (13 routers
> > from 1005 ~ 4500m) but we need a vlan switch.
> > The best I can think of is a used 5xxx from a reseller w/ a warranty. But
> > that RSM is $20,000 new.
> > Any thoughts?
> >
> > Matt
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Circusnuts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2000 6:43 AM
> > To: Chuck Larrieu; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: Re: Equipment needs - WAS: Why not supernetting?
> >
> >
> > 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]
> >
> > _________________________________
> > 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]
>
-----------------------------------------------
Brian Feeny, CCNP, CCDP [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Network Administrator
ShreveNet Inc. (ASN 11881)
_________________________________
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
