Re: Switch backplace capacity - how much do you need?
This was done last year by both MS and Mklinux. There were more DOS attacks than anything. In the end Mklinux was cracked because of a bad cgi script. I think it would have been a different story had all ports been locked down. On Tue, 04 Jul 2000, Lou Nelson wrote: > Better yet, > Advertise it to alt2600 and tell them > "U cant touch this... I have locked this down so smartly... and none of you > are bright enough to get into it" > PS..Back up all critical data before doing this and ensure you have no info > on the unit that you don't mind on the front page of the New York Times > > > > Lou Nelson, CCNP, CCDA ___ UPDATED Posting Guidelines: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/guide.html FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Switch backplace capacity - how much do you need?
Better yet, Advertise it to alt2600 and tell them "U cant touch this... I have locked this down so smartly... and none of you are bright enough to get into it" PS..Back up all critical data before doing this and ensure you have no info on the unit that you don't mind on the front page of the New York Times Lou Nelson, CCNP, CCDA - Original Message - From: "Kenny Sallee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "James Kavenaugh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, July 03, 2000 11:23 PM Subject: Re: Switch backplace capacity - how much do you need? > Sure - go ahead and send it. I'll see what I can do. > > Kenny > > - Original Message - > From: "James Kavenaugh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Kenny Sallee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Monday, July 03, 2000 4:35 PM > Subject: Re: Switch backplace capacity - how much do you need? > > > > Hi, > > Could you please tell me more about these security holes, back doors and > > incompatibilities you mention? Are you speaking of just the kernel or are > you > > including daemons that run on unix platforms? Maybe I could send you my ip > > and you could show me how trivial it is to cack? > > > > Thanks! > > James > > > > On Mon, 03 Jul 2000, you wrote: > > > Yea - if you want to put your enterprise on an OS full of security > holes, > > > back doors, and incompatibilities...not to mention all the moving parts > > > that can fail and the lack of modularity...Need anymore gas? > > > > > > Kenny > > > > -- > > James Kavenaugh > > Computer Geek > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > 425-260-4067 > > > > ___ > > UPDATED Posting Guidelines: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/guide.html > > FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com > > Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > ___ > UPDATED Posting Guidelines: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/guide.html > FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com > Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ UPDATED Posting Guidelines: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/guide.html FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Switch backplace capacity - how much do you need?
Scalable platforms, ranging from the Catalyst 6000 Series which offers 32 Gbps of switching capacity and scalable multilayer switching up to 30 Mpps, to the Catalyst 6500 Series offering scalable switching capacity up to 256 Gbps and multilayer switching up to 150 Mpps http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/pcat/ca6000.htm Lou Nelson, CCNP, CCDA - Original Message - From: "Jeff Kell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "McCormick, Corey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, July 03, 2000 10:54 PM Subject: Re: Switch backplace capacity - how much do you need? > > "McCormick, Corey" wrote: > > > > I have noticed that these numbers are actually not necessarily > > accurate either. > > > > The Catalyst 6509 has a backplane quoted as having 256Mb/sec, > > 128Mb/sec, 32Mb/sec and 16Mb/sec. Which is true? Sort of they all > > are, from my current information. > > Basically 16Gb/sec. There is a new blade coming for the 6500 that is a > 'crossbar switching fabric' that provides the higher bandwidth across > compatible cards, etc. > > And 10Gb may be within the calendar year. > > [According to Networkers Las Vegas talk on campus switching, if I recall > correctly; don't have my notes in front of me] > > Jeff Kell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > ___ > UPDATED Posting Guidelines: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/guide.html > FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com > Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ UPDATED Posting Guidelines: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/guide.html FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Switch backplace capacity - how much do you need?
Sure - go ahead and send it. I'll see what I can do. Kenny - Original Message - From: "James Kavenaugh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Kenny Sallee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, July 03, 2000 4:35 PM Subject: Re: Switch backplace capacity - how much do you need? > Hi, > Could you please tell me more about these security holes, back doors and > incompatibilities you mention? Are you speaking of just the kernel or are you > including daemons that run on unix platforms? Maybe I could send you my ip > and you could show me how trivial it is to cack? > > Thanks! > James > > On Mon, 03 Jul 2000, you wrote: > > Yea - if you want to put your enterprise on an OS full of security holes, > > back doors, and incompatibilities...not to mention all the moving parts > > that can fail and the lack of modularity...Need anymore gas? > > > > Kenny > > -- > James Kavenaugh > Computer Geek > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > 425-260-4067 > > ___ > UPDATED Posting Guidelines: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/guide.html > FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com > Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > ___ UPDATED Posting Guidelines: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/guide.html FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Switch backplace capacity - how much do you need?
> "McCormick, Corey" wrote: > > I have noticed that these numbers are actually not necessarily > accurate either. > > The Catalyst 6509 has a backplane quoted as having 256Mb/sec, > 128Mb/sec, 32Mb/sec and 16Mb/sec. Which is true? Sort of they all > are, from my current information. Basically 16Gb/sec. There is a new blade coming for the 6500 that is a 'crossbar switching fabric' that provides the higher bandwidth across compatible cards, etc. And 10Gb may be within the calendar year. [According to Networkers Las Vegas talk on campus switching, if I recall correctly; don't have my notes in front of me] Jeff Kell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ___ UPDATED Posting Guidelines: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/guide.html FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Switch backplace capacity - how much do you need?
Backplane capacity is a little like DRAM / Flash / CPU. You can NEVER have too much. What might be high by to-days standards could be stretching the limit in a few years. For example when someone decides all your servers need to be running at 10GB. Buy the most you can afford - you'll need it "someday". Feargal -Original Message- From: John Neiberger [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, July 03, 2000 9:18 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Switch backplace capacity - how much do you need? I've wondered about this myself. Consider the Catalyst 4006 as an example. It has a 60 Gbps backplane. Yes, you read that correctly...SIXTY gigabits per second...in a chassis that can hold five modules plus a supervisor module. Do we really *need* that much? My guess is no, we do not need quite that much. however, nowadays I would pick the switch with the higher backplane if I had the bucks to get it. It's nice to know that what's under the hood can handle anything we throw at it. Another example: we are going to be purchasing a 6509 with 256 Gbps backplane. Why? Because we can. No other reason. Never in a million years will we need that much capacity on this particular switch, especially since we'll initially only have five modules in it. But we'll have plenty of room for growth and it's one less thing to worry about. Besides, I'm a speed demon and as long as it's someone else's money (my employer's) then I want the biggest, fastest, coolest stuff around. Now, if it were MY money, that's another story. I'd be a little more realistic about my needs. No one is going to be running every port, full duplex, at max capacity. It will never happen, and if it does then you have much greater problems on your hands than just the backplane capacity of your switch. John Neiberger > Got another discussion question before I start work this morning ( no 4 day > holiday for me :-< ) sort of a continuation of the Brad Ellis discussion > about the SE over-engineering solutions for customers. > > Cisco of late is starting to talk about backplane capacity, and in > particular expandable backplane capacity in some of their switches. > > So the question I have revolves around backplane capacity and > "oversubscription" of the backplane on a switch. > > For example, if I have a Cat 3524 in the closet, and pop in cards to permit > me 24 ports of 100 mbs full duplex, under what circumstances might I be > concerned about "oversubscription". If I indeed had 24 devices plugged in, > theoretically I could be pumping 4.8 gigs of data simultaneously ( less a > little for interframe gaps, and other overhead kinds of things ) that puts > me a theoretical 5 times oversubscription of this guy's backplane capacity. > On the other hand, seems to me that if I were popping that much data > simultaneously from my 24 devices I would have other problems. Even that > proverbial high speed database / transaction / e-commerce server is not > going to be running full tilt in and out all the time. Let alone user > stations, no matter how much radio they listen to, or how many avi's or CBT > videos they are watching. Those stream one way, recall. > > So... what kinds of things do you consider when provisioning or > recommending? How would you approach this as a design issue? > > ( and no I do NOT have a customer for whom I am asking ;-> ) > > Chuck > > Please check out my new footers for a new age > 1) Altruism > http://www.thehungersite.com/cgi-bin/WebObjects/HungerSite > Please help feed hungry people worldwide. A few seconds a day can make a > difference to many people > > 2) Shameless Hucksterism > http://www.certificationzone.com > An excellent study focal point for all levels of certification, as well as > the attainment of internetworking expertise. Use my name when you register. > You get good study material and I get extra time > > ___ > UPDATED Posting Guidelines: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/guide.html > FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com > Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Say Bye to Slow Internet! http://www.home.com/xinbox/signup.html ___ UPDATED Posting Guidelines: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/guide.html FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ UPDATED Posting Guidelines: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/guide.html FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Switch backplace capacity - how much do you need?
Actually I just priced one for a client and when you have folks running gigabit to the desktop and 40 dual P3's slabs dumping rendered digtal video. it does not take long to gobble up 60 gigs. Don't discount giga to the desk top. Remember people laughed at 100 meg to the desktop. I mean, really ,soon running roaming profiles and the office 2K suite your profile would be half a gig just to logon heh. Also there is the high horsepower synadrome, folks want it because it's there. Does not mean they NEED it or even USE it tho Oz http://www.mcseco-op.com/Cheap_Cisco_stuff.htm Consider the Catalyst 4006 as an > example. > > It has a 60 Gbps backplane. Yes, you read that correctly...SIXTY gigabits > > per second...in a chassis that can hold five modules plus a supervisor > > module. Do we really *need* that much? ___ UPDATED Posting Guidelines: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/guide.html FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Switch backplace capacity - how much do you need?
Hi, Could you please tell me more about these security holes, back doors and incompatibilities you mention? Are you speaking of just the kernel or are you including daemons that run on unix platforms? Maybe I could send you my ip and you could show me how trivial it is to cack? Thanks! James On Mon, 03 Jul 2000, you wrote: > Yea - if you want to put your enterprise on an OS full of security holes, > back doors, and incompatibilities...not to mention all the moving parts > that can fail and the lack of modularity...Need anymore gas? > > Kenny -- James Kavenaugh Computer Geek [EMAIL PROTECTED] 425-260-4067 ___ UPDATED Posting Guidelines: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/guide.html FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Switch backplace capacity - how much do you need?
wow. I guess I threw on enough gas. I'm personnally a Linux fan. Just wanted to see how many responses I could get. That's quite a sec flaw. guess I'll have to find another client. Of which there are most likely to be flaws in as well. How about these comments: I'm not using outlook express on the enterprise backbone! Cisco routers are not invulerable, but configured properly are just about impossible to break into. Not only that, there's not way in the world a 486 is going to forward traffic like and provide the functionality of a Cisco router. Granted there is a large price difference PS - I've got an old keyboard at home you can have. It's missing a few keys, but using it would be the same as using a Linux router in place of a Cisco router :) Kenny - Original Message - From: "Jay Hennigan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Kenny Sallee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: "Chuck Larrieu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, July 03, 2000 1:02 PM Subject: Re: Switch backplace capacity - how much do you need? > On Mon, 3 Jul 2000, Kenny Sallee wrote, with the following in his headers: > > X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6700 > X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6700 > > > Yea - if you want to put your enterprise on an OS full of security holes, > > back doors, and incompatibilities... > > You owe me a new keyboard. I just spewed coffee on mine. > > How can anyone running Outhouse Excess throw stones re security holes? > > See http://members.xoom.com/malware/0uch.mhtml for a mild example. > > Details at http://www.malware.com/ > > not to mention kak, love-bug, etc., etc. > > -- > Jay Hennigan - Network Administration - [EMAIL PROTECTED] > NetLojix Communications, Inc. NASDAQ: NETX - http://www.netlojix.com/ > WestNet: Connecting you to the planet. 805 884-6323 > > > ___ UPDATED Posting Guidelines: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/guide.html FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Switch backplace capacity - how much do you need?
I'm in overall agreement with you, but I'd like to mention a few things. Using LRP (Linux Router Project), you can boot of a single floppy and then run from memory. In that case, you've got only the fans moving. I'll admit the hardware isn't hot-swappable or as fault tolerance as Cisco gear, but its pretty trivial to get a machine to act as a router without needing a hard drive. Second, I'd claim that a totally stripped down Linux install is equally secure as IOS. One need only check out the vulnerability database at SecurityFocus (http://www.securityfocus.com/vdb/middle.html?vendor=Cisco&title=&version=an y) to see that IOS isn't exactly the most secure OS on the market either. If not running any additional services (and configured properly), a Linux box can be very secure. Will it run a 50,000 node network...no, but Linux can (and does) perform admirably for many small to medium-sized companies who'd rather spend $1-2k for a Linux-based router versus $10k+ for a Cisco solution. The benfits of a Cisco box come at a very heavy premium. I'm not throwing gas on the fire (and I'm not a Linux zealot), I just want to give Linux the credit its due. Dave -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Kenny Sallee Sent: Monday, July 03, 2000 3:01 PM To: Chuck Larrieu; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Switch backplace capacity - how much do you need? Yea - if you want to put your enterprise on an OS full of security holes, back doors, and incompatibilities...not to mention all the moving parts that can fail and the lack of modularity...Need anymore gas? Kenny - Original Message - From: "Chuck Larrieu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Kenny Sallee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "John Neiberger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, July 03, 2000 11:36 AM Subject: RE: Switch backplace capacity - how much do you need? > According to the linux folks, you still don't. in fact many of them delight > in bragging how they run their enterprises on some old 486 pc. Pretty soon, > they say, you can throw out those nasty old cisco routers and use linux > boxes of 486 pc's as routers too. :-> > > ( ok. I know. I just threw some more gasoline on the fire. I just started > another war. :-> ) > > chuck > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of > Kenny Sallee > Sent: Monday, July 03, 2000 10:31 AM > To: John Neiberger; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Switch backplace capacity - how much do you need? > > "We'll never need more than 640k of memory". What they said in the "old > days". > > Kenny > > - Original Message - > From: "John Neiberger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Monday, July 03, 2000 9:17 AM > Subject: Re: Switch backplace capacity - how much do you need? > > > > I've wondered about this myself. Consider the Catalyst 4006 as an > example. > > It has a 60 Gbps backplane. Yes, you read that correctly...SIXTY gigabits > > per second...in a chassis that can hold five modules plus a supervisor > > module. Do we really *need* that much? > > > > My guess is no, we do not need quite that much. however, nowadays I would > > pick the switch with the higher backplane if I had the bucks to get it. > > It's nice to know that what's under the hood can handle anything we throw > at > > it. > > > > Another example: we are going to be purchasing a 6509 with 256 Gbps > > backplane. Why? Because we can. No other reason. Never in a million > > years will we need that much capacity on this particular switch, > especially > > since we'll initially only have five modules in it. But we'll have plenty > > of room for growth and it's one less thing to worry about. > > > > Besides, I'm a speed demon and as long as it's someone else's money (my > > employer's) then I want the biggest, fastest, coolest stuff around. > > Now, if it were MY money, that's another story. I'd be a little more > > realistic about my needs. No one is going to be running every port, full > > duplex, at max capacity. It will never happen, and if it does then you > have > > much greater problems on your hands than just the backplane capacity of > your > > switch. > > > > John Neiberger > > > > > Got another discussion question before I start work this morning ( no 4 > > day > > > holiday for me :-< ) sort of a continuation of the Brad Ellis > > discussion > > >
Re: Switch backplace capacity - how much do you need?
On Mon, 3 Jul 2000, Kenny Sallee wrote, with the following in his headers: X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6700 > Yea - if you want to put your enterprise on an OS full of security holes, > back doors, and incompatibilities... You owe me a new keyboard. I just spewed coffee on mine. How can anyone running Outhouse Excess throw stones re security holes? See http://members.xoom.com/malware/0uch.mhtml for a mild example. Details at http://www.malware.com/ not to mention kak, love-bug, etc., etc. -- Jay Hennigan - Network Administration - [EMAIL PROTECTED] NetLojix Communications, Inc. NASDAQ: NETX - http://www.netlojix.com/ WestNet: Connecting you to the planet. 805 884-6323 ___ UPDATED Posting Guidelines: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/guide.html FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Switch backplace capacity - how much do you need?
Title: Re: Switch backplace capacity - how much do you need? I have noticed that these numbers are actually not necessarily accurate either. The Catalyst 6509 has a backplane quoted as having 256Mb/sec, 128Mb/sec, 32Mb/sec and 16Mb/sec. Which is true? Sort of they all are, from my current information. There are only empty traces right now for the 256G backplane. These new switch fabric/line cards are not yet shipping and the current ones *do not touch* those high speed traces. It will require at least one of the two center slots to be empty for the fabric and some (as yet unknown 0-16) number of ports on the switch fabric cards. So all you have now is the 16G Full Duplex which is still quite a bit, but definitely not 256G (or even 128G Full Duplex ;-) ). The current backplane is quoted as either 32G total or 16G Full duplex. Kind of like the Marketing version of Fast Etherchannel being 200Mb/per link (or 100Mb Full Duplex). There are other issues with it's Jumbo frame support as well, but that is another story... BTW, I there are some Cisco docs that re-badge the Cat5500 backplane as a 7.2G (3 x 1.2G *Full Duplex*)... Is this really the case? I still think Cisco makes some great stuff, but you have to dig more since marketing is replacing truthfulness everywhere. I believe Cisco is not alone in this... I am thankful we have access to a few excellent Cisco folks to help us keep this straight as the big company does not do it well anymore. Take care, Corey McCormick
Re: Switch backplace capacity - how much do you need?
Yea - if you want to put your enterprise on an OS full of security holes, back doors, and incompatibilities...not to mention all the moving parts that can fail and the lack of modularity...Need anymore gas? Kenny - Original Message - From: "Chuck Larrieu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Kenny Sallee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "John Neiberger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, July 03, 2000 11:36 AM Subject: RE: Switch backplace capacity - how much do you need? > According to the linux folks, you still don't. in fact many of them delight > in bragging how they run their enterprises on some old 486 pc. Pretty soon, > they say, you can throw out those nasty old cisco routers and use linux > boxes of 486 pc's as routers too. :-> > > ( ok. I know. I just threw some more gasoline on the fire. I just started > another war. :-> ) > > chuck > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of > Kenny Sallee > Sent: Monday, July 03, 2000 10:31 AM > To: John Neiberger; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Switch backplace capacity - how much do you need? > > "We'll never need more than 640k of memory". What they said in the "old > days". > > Kenny > > - Original Message ----- > From: "John Neiberger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Monday, July 03, 2000 9:17 AM > Subject: Re: Switch backplace capacity - how much do you need? > > > > I've wondered about this myself. Consider the Catalyst 4006 as an > example. > > It has a 60 Gbps backplane. Yes, you read that correctly...SIXTY gigabits > > per second...in a chassis that can hold five modules plus a supervisor > > module. Do we really *need* that much? > > > > My guess is no, we do not need quite that much. however, nowadays I would > > pick the switch with the higher backplane if I had the bucks to get it. > > It's nice to know that what's under the hood can handle anything we throw > at > > it. > > > > Another example: we are going to be purchasing a 6509 with 256 Gbps > > backplane. Why? Because we can. No other reason. Never in a million > > years will we need that much capacity on this particular switch, > especially > > since we'll initially only have five modules in it. But we'll have plenty > > of room for growth and it's one less thing to worry about. > > > > Besides, I'm a speed demon and as long as it's someone else's money (my > > employer's) then I want the biggest, fastest, coolest stuff around. > > Now, if it were MY money, that's another story. I'd be a little more > > realistic about my needs. No one is going to be running every port, full > > duplex, at max capacity. It will never happen, and if it does then you > have > > much greater problems on your hands than just the backplane capacity of > your > > switch. > > > > John Neiberger > > > > > Got another discussion question before I start work this morning ( no 4 > > day > > > holiday for me :-< ) sort of a continuation of the Brad Ellis > > discussion > > > about the SE over-engineering solutions for customers. > > > > > > Cisco of late is starting to talk about backplane capacity, and in > > > particular expandable backplane capacity in some of their switches. > > > > > > So the question I have revolves around backplane capacity and > > > "oversubscription" of the backplane on a switch. > > > > > > For example, if I have a Cat 3524 in the closet, and pop in cards to > > permit > > > me 24 ports of 100 mbs full duplex, under what circumstances might I be > > > concerned about "oversubscription". If I indeed had 24 devices plugged > > in, > > > theoretically I could be pumping 4.8 gigs of data simultaneously less > a > > > little for interframe gaps, and other overhead kinds of things ) that > > puts > > > me a theoretical 5 times oversubscription of this guy's backplane > > capacity. > > > On the other hand, seems to me that if I were popping that much data > > > simultaneously from my 24 devices I would have other problems. Even > that > > > proverbial high speed database / transaction / e-commerce server is not > > > going to be running full tilt in and out all the time. Let alone user > > > stations, no matter how much radio they listen to, or how many avi's or > > CBT > &
RE: Switch backplace capacity - how much do you need?
According to the linux folks, you still don't. in fact many of them delight in bragging how they run their enterprises on some old 486 pc. Pretty soon, they say, you can throw out those nasty old cisco routers and use linux boxes of 486 pc's as routers too. :-> ( ok. I know. I just threw some more gasoline on the fire. I just started another war. :-> ) chuck -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Kenny Sallee Sent: Monday, July 03, 2000 10:31 AM To: John Neiberger; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Switch backplace capacity - how much do you need? "We'll never need more than 640k of memory". What they said in the "old days". Kenny - Original Message - From: "John Neiberger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, July 03, 2000 9:17 AM Subject: Re: Switch backplace capacity - how much do you need? > I've wondered about this myself. Consider the Catalyst 4006 as an example. > It has a 60 Gbps backplane. Yes, you read that correctly...SIXTY gigabits > per second...in a chassis that can hold five modules plus a supervisor > module. Do we really *need* that much? > > My guess is no, we do not need quite that much. however, nowadays I would > pick the switch with the higher backplane if I had the bucks to get it. > It's nice to know that what's under the hood can handle anything we throw at > it. > > Another example: we are going to be purchasing a 6509 with 256 Gbps > backplane. Why? Because we can. No other reason. Never in a million > years will we need that much capacity on this particular switch, especially > since we'll initially only have five modules in it. But we'll have plenty > of room for growth and it's one less thing to worry about. > > Besides, I'm a speed demon and as long as it's someone else's money (my > employer's) then I want the biggest, fastest, coolest stuff around. > Now, if it were MY money, that's another story. I'd be a little more > realistic about my needs. No one is going to be running every port, full > duplex, at max capacity. It will never happen, and if it does then you have > much greater problems on your hands than just the backplane capacity of your > switch. > > John Neiberger > > > Got another discussion question before I start work this morning ( no 4 > day > > holiday for me :-< ) sort of a continuation of the Brad Ellis > discussion > > about the SE over-engineering solutions for customers. > > > > Cisco of late is starting to talk about backplane capacity, and in > > particular expandable backplane capacity in some of their switches. > > > > So the question I have revolves around backplane capacity and > > "oversubscription" of the backplane on a switch. > > > > For example, if I have a Cat 3524 in the closet, and pop in cards to > permit > > me 24 ports of 100 mbs full duplex, under what circumstances might I be > > concerned about "oversubscription". If I indeed had 24 devices plugged > in, > > theoretically I could be pumping 4.8 gigs of data simultaneously ( less a > > little for interframe gaps, and other overhead kinds of things ) that > puts > > me a theoretical 5 times oversubscription of this guy's backplane > capacity. > > On the other hand, seems to me that if I were popping that much data > > simultaneously from my 24 devices I would have other problems. Even that > > proverbial high speed database / transaction / e-commerce server is not > > going to be running full tilt in and out all the time. Let alone user > > stations, no matter how much radio they listen to, or how many avi's or > CBT > > videos they are watching. Those stream one way, recall. > > > > So... what kinds of things do you consider when provisioning or > > recommending? How would you approach this as a design issue? > > > > ( and no I do NOT have a customer for whom I am asking ;-> ) > > > > Chuck > > > > Please check out my new footers for a new age > > 1) Altruism > > http://www.thehungersite.com/cgi-bin/WebObjects/HungerSite > > Please help feed hungry people worldwide. A few seconds a day can make a > > difference to many people > > > > 2) Shameless Hucksterism > > http://www.certificationzone.com > > An excellent study focal point for all levels of certification, as well > as > > the attainment of internetworking expertise. Use my name when you > register. > > You get good study material and I get extra time > > > &g
Re: Switch backplace capacity - how much do you need?
"We'll never need more than 640k of memory". What they said in the "old days". Kenny - Original Message - From: "John Neiberger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, July 03, 2000 9:17 AM Subject: Re: Switch backplace capacity - how much do you need? > I've wondered about this myself. Consider the Catalyst 4006 as an example. > It has a 60 Gbps backplane. Yes, you read that correctly...SIXTY gigabits > per second...in a chassis that can hold five modules plus a supervisor > module. Do we really *need* that much? > > My guess is no, we do not need quite that much. however, nowadays I would > pick the switch with the higher backplane if I had the bucks to get it. > It's nice to know that what's under the hood can handle anything we throw at > it. > > Another example: we are going to be purchasing a 6509 with 256 Gbps > backplane. Why? Because we can. No other reason. Never in a million > years will we need that much capacity on this particular switch, especially > since we'll initially only have five modules in it. But we'll have plenty > of room for growth and it's one less thing to worry about. > > Besides, I'm a speed demon and as long as it's someone else's money (my > employer's) then I want the biggest, fastest, coolest stuff around. > Now, if it were MY money, that's another story. I'd be a little more > realistic about my needs. No one is going to be running every port, full > duplex, at max capacity. It will never happen, and if it does then you have > much greater problems on your hands than just the backplane capacity of your > switch. > > John Neiberger > > > Got another discussion question before I start work this morning ( no 4 > day > > holiday for me :-< ) sort of a continuation of the Brad Ellis > discussion > > about the SE over-engineering solutions for customers. > > > > Cisco of late is starting to talk about backplane capacity, and in > > particular expandable backplane capacity in some of their switches. > > > > So the question I have revolves around backplane capacity and > > "oversubscription" of the backplane on a switch. > > > > For example, if I have a Cat 3524 in the closet, and pop in cards to > permit > > me 24 ports of 100 mbs full duplex, under what circumstances might I be > > concerned about "oversubscription". If I indeed had 24 devices plugged > in, > > theoretically I could be pumping 4.8 gigs of data simultaneously ( less a > > little for interframe gaps, and other overhead kinds of things ) that > puts > > me a theoretical 5 times oversubscription of this guy's backplane > capacity. > > On the other hand, seems to me that if I were popping that much data > > simultaneously from my 24 devices I would have other problems. Even that > > proverbial high speed database / transaction / e-commerce server is not > > going to be running full tilt in and out all the time. Let alone user > > stations, no matter how much radio they listen to, or how many avi's or > CBT > > videos they are watching. Those stream one way, recall. > > > > So... what kinds of things do you consider when provisioning or > > recommending? How would you approach this as a design issue? > > > > ( and no I do NOT have a customer for whom I am asking ;-> ) > > > > Chuck > > > > Please check out my new footers for a new age > > 1) Altruism > > http://www.thehungersite.com/cgi-bin/WebObjects/HungerSite > > Please help feed hungry people worldwide. A few seconds a day can make a > > difference to many people > > > > 2) Shameless Hucksterism > > http://www.certificationzone.com > > An excellent study focal point for all levels of certification, as well > as > > the attainment of internetworking expertise. Use my name when you > register. > > You get good study material and I get extra time > > > > ___ > > UPDATED Posting Guidelines: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/guide.html > > FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com > > Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > ___ > Say Bye to Slow Internet! > http://www.home.com/xinbox/signup.html > > ___ > UPDATED Posting Guidelines: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/guide.html > FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com > Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > ___ UPDATED Posting Guidelines: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/guide.html FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Switch backplace capacity - how much do you need?
Also, just a quick point, you never get 100Mbps (or 200Mbps full duplex) throughput, only about what... 65% max anyway? So you can figure that into your calculation too. Also, you don't think you'll ever run Gigabit Ethernet to the desktop with some new and improved NICs? Might be sooner than you think. We actually are doing that with some servers, in addition to ultrawide SCSI to an EMC. Not sure how you post to the list, so I sent to you also just in case. :-P Jim Croyle Systems Engineer -Original Message- From: John Neiberger [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, July 03, 2000 12:18 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Switch backplace capacity - how much do you need? I've wondered about this myself. Consider the Catalyst 4006 as an example. It has a 60 Gbps backplane. Yes, you read that correctly...SIXTY gigabits per second...in a chassis that can hold five modules plus a supervisor module. Do we really *need* that much? My guess is no, we do not need quite that much. however, nowadays I would pick the switch with the higher backplane if I had the bucks to get it. It's nice to know that what's under the hood can handle anything we throw at it. Another example: we are going to be purchasing a 6509 with 256 Gbps backplane. Why? Because we can. No other reason. Never in a million years will we need that much capacity on this particular switch, especially since we'll initially only have five modules in it. But we'll have plenty of room for growth and it's one less thing to worry about. Besides, I'm a speed demon and as long as it's someone else's money (my employer's) then I want the biggest, fastest, coolest stuff around. Now, if it were MY money, that's another story. I'd be a little more realistic about my needs. No one is going to be running every port, full duplex, at max capacity. It will never happen, and if it does then you have much greater problems on your hands than just the backplane capacity of your switch. John Neiberger > Got another discussion question before I start work this morning ( no 4 day > holiday for me :-< ) sort of a continuation of the Brad Ellis discussion > about the SE over-engineering solutions for customers. > > Cisco of late is starting to talk about backplane capacity, and in > particular expandable backplane capacity in some of their switches. > > So the question I have revolves around backplane capacity and > "oversubscription" of the backplane on a switch. > > For example, if I have a Cat 3524 in the closet, and pop in cards to permit > me 24 ports of 100 mbs full duplex, under what circumstances might I be > concerned about "oversubscription". If I indeed had 24 devices plugged in, > theoretically I could be pumping 4.8 gigs of data simultaneously ( less a > little for interframe gaps, and other overhead kinds of things ) that puts > me a theoretical 5 times oversubscription of this guy's backplane capacity. > On the other hand, seems to me that if I were popping that much data > simultaneously from my 24 devices I would have other problems. Even that > proverbial high speed database / transaction / e-commerce server is not > going to be running full tilt in and out all the time. Let alone user > stations, no matter how much radio they listen to, or how many avi's or CBT > videos they are watching. Those stream one way, recall. > > So... what kinds of things do you consider when provisioning or > recommending? How would you approach this as a design issue? > > ( and no I do NOT have a customer for whom I am asking ;-> ) > > Chuck > > Please check out my new footers for a new age > 1) Altruism > http://www.thehungersite.com/cgi-bin/WebObjects/HungerSite > Please help feed hungry people worldwide. A few seconds a day can make a > difference to many people > > 2) Shameless Hucksterism > http://www.certificationzone.com > An excellent study focal point for all levels of certification, as well as > the attainment of internetworking expertise. Use my name when you register. > You get good study material and I get extra time > > ___ > UPDATED Posting Guidelines: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/guide.html > FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com > Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Say Bye to Slow Internet! http://www.home.com/xinbox/signup.html ___ UPDATED Posting Guidelines: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/guide.html FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL
Re: Switch backplace capacity - how much do you need?
I've wondered about this myself. Consider the Catalyst 4006 as an example. It has a 60 Gbps backplane. Yes, you read that correctly...SIXTY gigabits per second...in a chassis that can hold five modules plus a supervisor module. Do we really *need* that much? My guess is no, we do not need quite that much. however, nowadays I would pick the switch with the higher backplane if I had the bucks to get it. It's nice to know that what's under the hood can handle anything we throw at it. Another example: we are going to be purchasing a 6509 with 256 Gbps backplane. Why? Because we can. No other reason. Never in a million years will we need that much capacity on this particular switch, especially since we'll initially only have five modules in it. But we'll have plenty of room for growth and it's one less thing to worry about. Besides, I'm a speed demon and as long as it's someone else's money (my employer's) then I want the biggest, fastest, coolest stuff around. Now, if it were MY money, that's another story. I'd be a little more realistic about my needs. No one is going to be running every port, full duplex, at max capacity. It will never happen, and if it does then you have much greater problems on your hands than just the backplane capacity of your switch. John Neiberger > Got another discussion question before I start work this morning ( no 4 day > holiday for me :-< ) sort of a continuation of the Brad Ellis discussion > about the SE over-engineering solutions for customers. > > Cisco of late is starting to talk about backplane capacity, and in > particular expandable backplane capacity in some of their switches. > > So the question I have revolves around backplane capacity and > "oversubscription" of the backplane on a switch. > > For example, if I have a Cat 3524 in the closet, and pop in cards to permit > me 24 ports of 100 mbs full duplex, under what circumstances might I be > concerned about "oversubscription". If I indeed had 24 devices plugged in, > theoretically I could be pumping 4.8 gigs of data simultaneously ( less a > little for interframe gaps, and other overhead kinds of things ) that puts > me a theoretical 5 times oversubscription of this guy's backplane capacity. > On the other hand, seems to me that if I were popping that much data > simultaneously from my 24 devices I would have other problems. Even that > proverbial high speed database / transaction / e-commerce server is not > going to be running full tilt in and out all the time. Let alone user > stations, no matter how much radio they listen to, or how many avi's or CBT > videos they are watching. Those stream one way, recall. > > So... what kinds of things do you consider when provisioning or > recommending? How would you approach this as a design issue? > > ( and no I do NOT have a customer for whom I am asking ;-> ) > > Chuck > > Please check out my new footers for a new age > 1) Altruism > http://www.thehungersite.com/cgi-bin/WebObjects/HungerSite > Please help feed hungry people worldwide. A few seconds a day can make a > difference to many people > > 2) Shameless Hucksterism > http://www.certificationzone.com > An excellent study focal point for all levels of certification, as well as > the attainment of internetworking expertise. Use my name when you register. > You get good study material and I get extra time > > ___ > UPDATED Posting Guidelines: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/guide.html > FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com > Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Say Bye to Slow Internet! http://www.home.com/xinbox/signup.html ___ UPDATED Posting Guidelines: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/guide.html FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
