Hi,
I can't find my figures but off memory you can have 5 bridges between 2 devices
therefore you could have up to 5 switches between two clients or client -> server.
This would probably suggest the to go more than 3 deep in your cascading could present
a problem but could the links cope.
Running 15 or so switches into another with a couple of servers into it would be ok.
But running 15 or 20 into one switch then onto another 15 or 20 I guess you would end
up with a huge bottle neck if not between switches then most likely at a server.
20 X 20 is alreay 400 connections, whew!.
Just some thoughts.
Teunis
Hobart, Tasmania
Austalia
On Monday, January 22, 2001 at 04:49:30 PM, Maness. Drew wrote:
> I've looked through the archives as well as on CCO but could not find a
> definite answer to the limit of "cascading" switches, specifically catalyst
> 2900's. I saw the discussion earlier this year/last year that talked about
> the difference between "cascading" and "stacking". I'm not looking for
> shared management (stacking) but just how many switches can I cascade
> together to get the highest port concentration. Just a simple (or bad
> network design)of one switch to another to another to N... because I ran out
> of ports and do not want to by a real switch scenario.... How many can I
> connect?
>
> My first reaction to this question was that it had to be limited by the CAM
> of each switch but can't find an answer. Again it is for the 2900 series
> switch.
>
> Thanks
>
> Drew
>
> _________________________________
> FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
> Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
--
www.tasmail.com
_________________________________
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
