I don't think Cisco is primarily concerned with the "cost" of outfitting their own labs with 6500s. After all, their cost is MUCH lower than the list prices. I think Cisco is being considerate of OUR wallets. This is the same reason they don't have 7200 routers and 7500 routers on the equipment list. These are used widely in the "real world," but Cisco wants us to be able to learn the material without having access to a $50,000 lab (used prices).
""Tim O'Brien"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > Theo, > > By no means is the 3550 replacing the 6500 in a real world scenario. The > 3550 is an "IDF" non-chassis switch. The most density you can get is 48 > 10/100 ports. However, the IOS structure and layer 3 capabilities allow you > to mimic a lot of the new functionality that you have in the 6500. This will > allow the CCIE lab to contain new technologies such as Private VLANS, QoS, > STP enhancements, Voice VLANS, etc... This also gives way to the future of > the 6500 running native IOS. So, if you are an expert on the 3550, chance > are that you will know your way around a 6500 pretty well. > > Tim > CCIE 9015 > > p.s. Think of the cost of outfitting the 9 CCIE labs with new 6506's. With > RTP having something like 14 racks, I will use 10 as an average since I have > no idea what the other labs have. A simple config on a 6506 with a > Sup2-MSFC2, a WS-X6348-RJ45V, the necessary software and memory comes to > $71,000 list price * 90 units = $6,390,000.00! They could throw in a > WS-C3550-24-EMI for a list price of $4,990.00 and come out with a total of > $449,100 with a similar feature set. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2002 3:26 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: Not on;y is TR going... [7:46391] > > > My bewilderment comes from my previous belief that Cisco, your company, > was promoting the 6000 and 6500 series switches as the replacement to the > 5xxx series. I have recommeded since last August to use the 65xx because > of this. Of course I thought this switch would be on the test! It is a > good machine and I like it. Of course I like Foundry's ServerIrons too > but for a Cisco Switch, I really do like the 65xx. > > IDS is only part of the problem. The 65xx uses modules. I thought for > sure Cisco would want engineers to know about how to configure the modules > not only because it increases the value of the engineer but more > importantly, it is useful in marketing and sales. Don't you want to > promote the modules on the 65xxx???? They are really expensive and Cisco > must make some good money off of them. > > The 3550 is what? Perhaps we can all buy one, I just saw 4 on e-bay, each > for under $3000, but doesn't Cisco want to test us off of what many > enterprises are using? I was at a Cisco Gold Partner company last year > and they only recommended the 5xxx and then the 65xx. Of course many > customers bought the 29xx but on the test there was the 5xxx-a modular > switch. It just doesn't make sense..... It looks too easy. > > But hey! It's your company! Of course it will be beneficial to me as a > test-taker to have the 3550. I am just at a loss as to why Cisco is not > putting the replacement switch on the test. Your commments???? > > Theo > > > > > > > "Larry Letterman" > 06/13/2002 02:33 PM > > > To: , > cc: > Subject: RE: Not on;y is TR going... [7:46391] > > > and why are you so distraught about no IDS..? > other than the fact we all know your big on security. > > Its a basic l2/l3 switch for the lan switching part of > the R/S lab, not the security lab... > > > Larry Letterman > Cisco Systems > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2002 9:11 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: Not on;y is TR going... [7:46391] > > > I don't know about this thing. > What is the real throughput I wonder. > It says 24Gbbs switching fabric but I can't find a place where is says "X > Gbbs throughput" > Has anyone really ever tested one of these puppies? I would like to know > if it can really take a beating without losing packets. > And this thing can't do IDS! Why O why did they choose this thing? How > about the Content Swiching Module? Does it have anything like this? I am > looking at the page now and can't see anything promising. Man was someone > sniffing acid when they suggested the switch and it wasn't IDS??? > > I would like to know if anyone has any experience with this with like 10 > 1-gig copper connections, all intensive traffic flows between various > servers. I know the 6509 can take the pain without too much trouble. Can > the 3550 really perform???? > > Theo > > > > > > > "Mark Odette II" > Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > 06/13/2002 12:14 PM > Please respond to "Mark Odette II" > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > cc: > Subject: RE: Not on;y is TR going... [7:46391] > > > The 3550 running the Enhanced image of IOS is a layer 3 switch with 24 > or 48 ports- No need for a Route Module add-on. You can put an IP on > every single port too from what I understand. > > It more or less can do the same thing as a 6500 - minus any Tel-Co > blades that might be able to be put in the 6500. Of course, I don't > have any experience with the 6500 series switch, so I don't know what > all you can put in it. :( > > Mark > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2002 9:24 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Not on;y is TR going... [7:46391] > > Dream of many 3550s...... > > Question: Maybe I am an Idiot or something but why are they using the > 3550? I just don't understand. I thought they shoud use the 6506 or > something like that not a lower model. Can someone clarify this point > for > me. > > Theo > > > > > > > "Steven A. Ridder" > Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > 06/13/2002 11:00 AM > Please respond to "Steven A. Ridder" > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > cc: > Subject: Re: Not on;y is TR going... [7:46391] > > > I'm an idiot. I see someone else already posted it. > > I'm going to bed then..... > > Steve > > ""Steven A. Ridder"" wrote in message > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > Right from Cisco's mouth: NO MORE IPX, TOKEN RING, OR CatOS!!!!! > > > > "CCIE candidates should note changes to the technical content and > equipment > > in the lab exam. Effective October 1st, 2002, candidates will no > longer > be > > tested in the areas of IGRP, Token Ring, Token Ring Switching, or IPX. > Note: > > DLSW+ will remain as a protocol that can be tested in the lab. The > Catalyst > > 5500 switch will be replaced with the Catalyst 3550." > > > > > http://www.cisco.com/warp/customer/625/ccie/ccie_program/whatsnew.html#1 > 8 > > > > -- > > RFC 1149 Compliant Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=46460&t=46391 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
