Cisco vs. HP Switches
We are looking at four new 24 port switches for our network. We have Cisco and HP as our final contenders. Both the HP Procurve and the Cisco Catalyst carry similar specs, but the HP is about 20% of the cost of the Cisco. Can someone give me a REAL reason why the Cisco Catalyst would be a better choice. Our network is all 10/100 for now and we won't need Gigabit for at least a couple of years. We need these switches to be in 24 port configurations as the company is going to split in two in a couple of months and move half of the operations to another building, so we need to be able to split the network as needed. I know this is a Cisco group, which is why I am asking it here, because I want a BIASED opinion of why Cisco would be better in this situation. Thank you all for your suggestions. Denis Denis A. Baldwin Network Administrator - CAE, Inc. A+, MCP, i-Net+, Network+ [EMAIL PROTECTED] 810-231-9373, ext. 229 _ FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Cisco vs. HP Switches
> We are looking at four new 24 port switches for our network. We have Cisco > and HP as our final contenders. Both the HP Procurve and the Cisco > Catalyst carry similar specs, but the HP is about 20% of the cost of the > Cisco. Can someone give me a REAL reason why the Cisco Catalyst would be a > better choice. Our network is all 10/100 for now and we won't need Gigabit > for at least a couple of years. We need these switches to be in 24 port > configurations as the company is going to split in two in a couple of months > and move half of the operations to another building, so we need to be able > to split the network as needed. I know this is a Cisco group, which is why > I am asking it here, because I want a BIASED opinion of why Cisco would be > better in this situation. Thank you all for your suggestions. I run a network that has a mix of Catalyst and ProCurve switches in it. I use the ProCurve stuff quite a bit for desktop/local wiring closet connections. Frankly, it's really nice hardware, and I love it. Config is accomplished through a menu-based interface, which is kind of a pain in the butt when you're trying to do a lot of config in a short time, but you can also tftp config files into the switches. I greatly prefer the command line. The ProCurve hardware supports virtual stacking/clustering, CoS, etc. The ProCurve hardware also carries a lifetime warranty. You let the magic smoke out of a switch, and they'll send you a new one. The Catalyst stuff has a lot more flexibility with respect to config, which shouldn't surprise you much. Some of the Catalyst stuff also has an upgrade path to allow you to do inline power to the ports for IP phones, if that's something you want to look at later on. Ben _ FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Cisco vs. HP Switches
How about "Complete network management" with Cisco Works. "Denis A. Baldwin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on 12/07/2000 10:30:35 AM Please respond to "Denis A. Baldwin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] cc:(bcc: Ron Stark/SanDiego/Cymer) Subject: Cisco vs. HP Switches We are looking at four new 24 port switches for our network. We have Cisco and HP as our final contenders. Both the HP Procurve and the Cisco Catalyst carry similar specs, but the HP is about 20% of the cost of the Cisco. Can someone give me a REAL reason why the Cisco Catalyst would be a better choice. Our network is all 10/100 for now and we won't need Gigabit for at least a couple of years. We need these switches to be in 24 port configurations as the company is going to split in two in a couple of months and move half of the operations to another building, so we need to be able to split the network as needed. I know this is a Cisco group, which is why I am asking it here, because I want a BIASED opinion of why Cisco would be better in this situation. Thank you all for your suggestions. Denis Denis A. Baldwin Network Administrator - CAE, Inc. A+, MCP, i-Net+, Network+ [EMAIL PROTECTED] 810-231-9373, ext. 229 _ 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]
Re: Cisco vs. HP Switches
We have about 40 procurves with one cat5 almost never had problems. As long as you do not intend to deploy some thing which is cisco's pripotary, u will befine. Procureve supports standard VLANs, stacking etc...and relativley cheap. Procurve also come with free HPTop Tools which will let u manager them thru web browser,. inamu;l ""Denis A. Baldwin"" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message D00E59E6B585D411AC2E00C0F03B274D0EDADC@XSERVER">news:D00E59E6B585D411AC2E00C0F03B274D0EDADC@XSERVER... > We are looking at four new 24 port switches for our network. We have Cisco > and HP as our final contenders. Both the HP Procurve and the Cisco > Catalyst carry similar specs, but the HP is about 20% of the cost of the > Cisco. Can someone give me a REAL reason why the Cisco Catalyst would be a > better choice. Our network is all 10/100 for now and we won't need Gigabit > for at least a couple of years. We need these switches to be in 24 port > configurations as the company is going to split in two in a couple of months > and move half of the operations to another building, so we need to be able > to split the network as needed. I know this is a Cisco group, which is why > I am asking it here, because I want a BIASED opinion of why Cisco would be > better in this situation. Thank you all for your suggestions. > > Denis > > > Denis A. Baldwin > Network Administrator - CAE, Inc. > A+, MCP, i-Net+, Network+ > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > 810-231-9373, ext. 229 > > > _ > 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]
RE: Cisco vs. HP Switches
Sure I know a reason; HP. Really, can you give a reason why you would take HP over Cisco other than price. Grant you 20% is a great deal of money. But do you get IOS? Just a few thoughts. Have a good one. Chuck Collins CCNP --- We are looking at four new 24 port switches for our network. We have Cisco and HP as our final contenders. Both the HP Procurve and the Cisco Catalyst carry similar specs, but the HP is about 20% of the cost of the Cisco. Can someone give me a REAL reason why the Cisco Catalyst would be a better choice. Our network is all 10/100 for now and we won't need Gigabit for at least a couple of years. We need these switches to be in 24 port configurations as the company is going to split in two in a couple of months and move half of the operations to another building, so we need to be able to split the network as needed. I know this is a Cisco group, which is why I am asking it here, because I want a BIASED opinion of why Cisco would be better in this situation. Thank you all for your suggestions. Denis Denis A. Baldwin Network Administrator - CAE, Inc. A+, MCP, i-Net+, Network+ [EMAIL PROTECTED] 810-231-9373, ext. 229 _ 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]
RE: Cisco vs. HP Switches
Sorry it has taken me this long to reply, I have been extremely busy... Anyways, here are some reasons (from an obviously Cisco bias view)... Hope this helps... First, HP is a server company. Their primary focus is not networking equipment. Do you really want to trust your network infrastructure to them? The new 2524's also took a step backwards from the 4000M switches by only supporting basic 802.1p QoS. The also cannot do per-port TCP/UDP re-classification. The Cisco 3500 series can do re-classification on a per port basis. Another good point is stacking. Our solution scales to hundreds of ports at a very low cost while their solution is extremely expensive (around $900 per switch to stack). They really do not even position these switches for stacking. I know that this may not be a priority now, but you have to factor in some type of growth in the future. Poor VLAN support is another point. They only support 30, where we support 250 and support both ISL and 802.1Q. Another big future thinking point is their lack of application support. HP is NOT able to put together a network solution or even participate in one that has the promise and capability to scale to future converged networking. To the extent that most customers have a vision to scale to VoIP and video, HP in the LAN won't support it. Cisco is all about selling that integrated solution proposition based upon QoS, Inline Power, Call Mgr, resiliency features, IP Phone mgmt integration, etc... Hope these points help in your decision, if you need any additional information please let me know. Tim Original Message- From: Denis A. Baldwin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, December 07, 2000 4:41 PM To: 'Tim O'Brien' Subject: RE: Cisco vs. HP Switches The Cisco 3524 Catalyst and the HP Procurve 2524. Denis -Original Message- From: Tim O'Brien [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, December 07, 2000 4:10 PM To: Denis Baldwin Subject: RE: Cisco vs. HP Switches What model of switches are you looking at? Tim - Original Message - From: "Denis A. Baldwin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, December 07, 2000 1:30 PM Subject: Cisco vs. HP Switches We are looking at four new 24 port switches for our network. We have Cisco and HP as our final contenders. Both the HP Procurve and the Cisco Catalyst carry similar specs, but the HP is about 20% of the cost of the Cisco. Can someone give me a REAL reason why the Cisco Catalyst would be a better choice. Our network is all 10/100 for now and we won't need Gigabit for at least a couple of years. We need these switches to be in 24 port configurations as the company is going to split in two in a couple of months and move half of the operations to another building, so we need to be able to split the network as needed. I know this is a Cisco group, which is why I am asking it here, because I want a BIASED opinion of why Cisco would be better in this situation. Thank you all for your suggestions. Denis Denis A. Baldwin Network Administrator - CAE, Inc. A+, MCP, i-Net+, Network+ [EMAIL PROTECTED] 810-231-9373, ext. 229 _ 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]
RE: [RE: Cisco vs. HP Switches]
I know Foundry does a few... -Eddie -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Chuck Larrieu Sent: Friday, December 08, 2000 12:32 PM To: Petra Hofmann; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [RE: Cisco vs. HP Switches] Anyone know who OEM's for HP? Long ago is was Kalpana. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Petra Hofmann Sent: Friday, December 08, 2000 9:05 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject:Re: [RE: Cisco vs. HP Switches] Sure I can give you several. 1. Much easier to configure both with a console or Web interface. The Web interface is much more intuitive. 2. Setting up port trunking was easier with HP. I have 3 HP 2424M's which I chose of Cisco even though we have several Cisco 2500's. The only problem I had installing the HP was that one of their serial cables was bad and caused a configuration problem. Two of my HP's have run powered for 8 months without the first problem. From my experience there is no reason I would pay %20 more for Cisco. I should add that HP's tech support on the cable issue was as good as I've ever got with anyone if not better. Petra Lynn Hofmann, CCNA [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Sure I know a reason; HP. > Really, can you give a reason why you would take HP over Cisco other than price. > Grant you 20% is a great deal of money. But do you get IOS? > > Just a few thoughts. > Have a good one. > > Chuck Collins > CCNP > > --- > > > We are looking at four new 24 port switches for our network. We have Cisco > and HP as our final contenders. Both the HP Procurve and the Cisco > Catalyst carry similar specs, but the HP is about 20% of the cost of the > Cisco. Can someone give me a REAL reason why the Cisco Catalyst would be a > better choice. Our network is all 10/100 for now and we won't need Gigabit > for at least a couple of years. We need these switches to be in 24 port > configurations as the company is going to split in two in a couple of months > and move half of the operations to another building, so we need to be able > to split the network as needed. I know this is a Cisco group, which is why > I am asking it here, because I want a BIASED opinion of why Cisco would be > better in this situation. Thank you all for your suggestions. > > Denis > > > Denis A. Baldwin > Network Administrator - CAE, Inc. > A+, MCP, i-Net+, Network+ > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > 810-231-9373, ext. 229 > > > _ > 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] Get free email and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com/?N=1 _ 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]
RE: [RE: Cisco vs. HP Switches]
Anyone know who OEM's for HP? Long ago is was Kalpana. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Petra Hofmann Sent: Friday, December 08, 2000 9:05 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject:Re: [RE: Cisco vs. HP Switches] Sure I can give you several. 1. Much easier to configure both with a console or Web interface. The Web interface is much more intuitive. 2. Setting up port trunking was easier with HP. I have 3 HP 2424M's which I chose of Cisco even though we have several Cisco 2500's. The only problem I had installing the HP was that one of their serial cables was bad and caused a configuration problem. Two of my HP's have run powered for 8 months without the first problem. From my experience there is no reason I would pay %20 more for Cisco. I should add that HP's tech support on the cable issue was as good as I've ever got with anyone if not better. Petra Lynn Hofmann, CCNA [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Sure I know a reason; HP. > Really, can you give a reason why you would take HP over Cisco other than price. > Grant you 20% is a great deal of money. But do you get IOS? > > Just a few thoughts. > Have a good one. > > Chuck Collins > CCNP > > --- > > > We are looking at four new 24 port switches for our network. We have Cisco > and HP as our final contenders. Both the HP Procurve and the Cisco > Catalyst carry similar specs, but the HP is about 20% of the cost of the > Cisco. Can someone give me a REAL reason why the Cisco Catalyst would be a > better choice. Our network is all 10/100 for now and we won't need Gigabit > for at least a couple of years. We need these switches to be in 24 port > configurations as the company is going to split in two in a couple of months > and move half of the operations to another building, so we need to be able > to split the network as needed. I know this is a Cisco group, which is why > I am asking it here, because I want a BIASED opinion of why Cisco would be > better in this situation. Thank you all for your suggestions. > > Denis > > > Denis A. Baldwin > Network Administrator - CAE, Inc. > A+, MCP, i-Net+, Network+ > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > 810-231-9373, ext. 229 > > > _ > 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] Get free email and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com/?N=1 _ 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]
