Re: back to back cables [7:527]
Sorry to give you so much flack.As I mentioned in my first reply, the part numbers you need are: CAB-V35MT= CAB-V35FC= If you'd like, I could buy them for you and jack up the price. Then you could pay me $75 per cable and I'd make $30 or $40 on the deal. :-) Sorry, I couldn't resist. Regards, John | > | > Unless someone has the part number for an actual | > Cisco back to back cable, which is all that I asked | > for in the first place, I would like to see | > this thread buried. | > | > Thanks to everyone for their advice, | > Ray Mosely | > CCNA, MCSE | > | > -Original Message- | > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of | > John Neiberger | > Sent: Sunday, April 15, 2001 2:06 AM | > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | > Subject: RE: back to back cables [7:527] | > | > | > Wow, why not? Does your employer make a habit of spending three times as | > much as necessary? :-) Just kidding... | > | > If that's the case, then go with the part numbers I gave you. For the | sake | > of performance you'll want to go with the v.35 cables. | > | > John | > | > | It's simple. Cisco doesn't, to my knowledge, | > | make a back to back cable. I'm not allowed to | > | order a third party cable. | > | Ray M. | > | | > | -Original Message- | > | From: John Neiberger [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] | > | Sent: Friday, April 13, 2001 4:42 PM | > | To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | > | Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | > | Subject: Re: back to back cables [7:527] | > | | > | | > | Do I even dare ask why you are allowed to use two regular cables but | not | > | a back to back cable? | > | | > | Hmm... while writing that I just thought of one good reason. Whenever | > | I order a back-to-back cable I usually get an RS-232 cable. This would | > | tend to limit the clock rate between the two routers. If I needed a | > | higher speed I'd have to find a V.35 back to back cable which seem to | be | > | harder to find. | > | | > | If you want V.35: | > | | > | CAB-V35MT= | > | CAB-V35FC= | > | | > | If you want RS-232: | > | | > | CAB-232MT= | > | CAB-232FC= | > | | > | HTH, | > | John | > | | > | >>> "Ray Mosely" 4/13/01 4:29:14 PM >>> | > | I'm sorry to bring up this old old old | > | thread, but I'm in a situation where I | > | need a back to back cable for some 2501's, | > | but I'm not allowed to use a back to back | > | cable. | > | | > | There are two bona fide Cisco cables which | > | can be hooked together to make one back | > | to back cable (at three times the price | > | of a back to back). Anybody know the | > | part numbers of the Cisco cables? It's | > | for back to back on the WAN ports. | > | | > | Thanks, | > | Ray Mosely | > | CCNA, MCSE | > | 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] | > | > | > | > | > | > ___ | > Send a cool gift with your E-Card | > http://www.bluemountain.com/giftcenter/ | > 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] ___ Send a cool gift with your E-Card http://www.bluemountain.com/giftcenter/ Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=749&t=527 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: back to back cables [7:527]
That's got to be one of the lamest things I've ever heard. I'd tell accounting to stick it, and that unless they want to learn how to make routers work and figure out the correct parts, that perfectly legitimate third-party serial cables are no different than the Cisco blue & logo'd cables other than that they cost a third of the cost. That's like saying you won't by Kingston/etc DRAM or Flash at 1/2th to 1/4th the cost of Cisco products. Do you have the same limitations on this? They have the same "Cisco part no." but they're definitely not from Cisco's vendors. I would make a huge fuss over this and take it up as far as I had to, with the message that accounting was making the company throw away money so items would fit into the categories they wanted. I don't know how many routers you're having to buy for, but this sort of corporate waste just makes me go ballistic. It's the sort of thing the US Government is great at. Worst case, here is how I'd get around it: When you order the cables, just order 3-4 at a time so they come in at over $100 and tell the vendor you want them to show as a line-item of quantity 1. -- Jason Roysdon, CCNP+Security/CCDP, MCSE, CNA, Network+, A+ List email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Homepage: http://jason.artoo.net/ ""Ray Mosely"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > OK, for those of you who continue to be > incredulous, let me spell this out. > We have a budget with budget lines. Commodities > fall under $100, and equipment is over $100. > Third party cables would be commodities, and > there isn't enough money in that budget line > to buy cables, because somebody else didn't > put enough money in that budget line. > > On the other hand, there's too much money in > the equipment budget line, so if we buy Cisco > cables bundled with a Cisco router, then we > can actually get cables that will work. Even > if our supplier had third party cables (which > it doesn't), we can't legitimately make the > bookkeepers think that this is a manufacturer's > bundle. So I have to buy Cisco cables at $150 > a set, instead of third party cables at $50 a > piece. > > Now, I'm not sure that any of this has anything > to do with Cisco routers/routing, which is why > I did NOT say any of this to begin with. I said > simply that I could not buy third party cables, > which is true and the only fact that is truly > relevant. So hopefully, we can lay this to rest. > > > Unless someone has the part number for an actual > Cisco back to back cable, which is all that I asked > for in the first place, I would like to see > this thread buried. > > Thanks to everyone for their advice, > Ray Mosely > CCNA, MCSE > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of > John Neiberger > Sent: Sunday, April 15, 2001 2:06 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: back to back cables [7:527] > > > Wow, why not? Does your employer make a habit of spending three times as > much as necessary? :-) Just kidding... > > If that's the case, then go with the part numbers I gave you. For the sake > of performance you'll want to go with the v.35 cables. > > John > > | It's simple. Cisco doesn't, to my knowledge, > | make a back to back cable. I'm not allowed to > | order a third party cable. > | Ray M. > | > | -Original Message- > | From: John Neiberger [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > | Sent: Friday, April 13, 2001 4:42 PM > | To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > | Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > | Subject: Re: back to back cables [7:527] > | > | > | Do I even dare ask why you are allowed to use two regular cables but not > | a back to back cable? > | > | Hmm... while writing that I just thought of one good reason. Whenever > | I order a back-to-back cable I usually get an RS-232 cable. This would > | tend to limit the clock rate between the two routers. If I needed a > | higher speed I'd have to find a V.35 back to back cable which seem to be > | harder to find. > | > | If you want V.35: > | > | CAB-V35MT= > | CAB-V35FC= > | > | If you want RS-232: > | > | CAB-232MT= > | CAB-232FC= > | > | HTH, > | John > | > | >>> "Ray Mosely" 4/13/01 4:29:14 PM >>> > | I'm sorry to bring up this old old old > | thread, but I'm in a situation where I > | need a back to back cable for some 2501's, > | but I'm not allowed to use a back to back > | cable. > | > | There are two bona fide Cisco cables which > | can be hooked together to make
RE: back to back cables [7:527]
OK, for those of you who continue to be incredulous, let me spell this out. We have a budget with budget lines. Commodities fall under $100, and equipment is over $100. Third party cables would be commodities, and there isn't enough money in that budget line to buy cables, because somebody else didn't put enough money in that budget line. On the other hand, there's too much money in the equipment budget line, so if we buy Cisco cables bundled with a Cisco router, then we can actually get cables that will work. Even if our supplier had third party cables (which it doesn't), we can't legitimately make the bookkeepers think that this is a manufacturer's bundle. So I have to buy Cisco cables at $150 a set, instead of third party cables at $50 a piece. Now, I'm not sure that any of this has anything to do with Cisco routers/routing, which is why I did NOT say any of this to begin with. I said simply that I could not buy third party cables, which is true and the only fact that is truly relevant. So hopefully, we can lay this to rest. Unless someone has the part number for an actual Cisco back to back cable, which is all that I asked for in the first place, I would like to see this thread buried. Thanks to everyone for their advice, Ray Mosely CCNA, MCSE -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of John Neiberger Sent: Sunday, April 15, 2001 2:06 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: back to back cables [7:527] Wow, why not? Does your employer make a habit of spending three times as much as necessary? :-) Just kidding... If that's the case, then go with the part numbers I gave you. For the sake of performance you'll want to go with the v.35 cables. John | It's simple. Cisco doesn't, to my knowledge, | make a back to back cable. I'm not allowed to | order a third party cable. | Ray M. | | -Original Message- | From: John Neiberger [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] | Sent: Friday, April 13, 2001 4:42 PM | To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Subject: Re: back to back cables [7:527] | | | Do I even dare ask why you are allowed to use two regular cables but not | a back to back cable? | | Hmm... while writing that I just thought of one good reason. Whenever | I order a back-to-back cable I usually get an RS-232 cable. This would | tend to limit the clock rate between the two routers. If I needed a | higher speed I'd have to find a V.35 back to back cable which seem to be | harder to find. | | If you want V.35: | | CAB-V35MT= | CAB-V35FC= | | If you want RS-232: | | CAB-232MT= | CAB-232FC= | | HTH, | John | | >>> "Ray Mosely" 4/13/01 4:29:14 PM >>> | I'm sorry to bring up this old old old | thread, but I'm in a situation where I | need a back to back cable for some 2501's, | but I'm not allowed to use a back to back | cable. | | There are two bona fide Cisco cables which | can be hooked together to make one back | to back cable (at three times the price | of a back to back). Anybody know the | part numbers of the Cisco cables? It's | for back to back on the WAN ports. | | Thanks, | Ray Mosely | CCNA, MCSE | 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] ___ Send a cool gift with your E-Card http://www.bluemountain.com/giftcenter/ FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=712&t=527 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: back to back cables [7:527]
Wow, why not? Does your employer make a habit of spending three times as much as necessary? :-) Just kidding... If that's the case, then go with the part numbers I gave you. For the sake of performance you'll want to go with the v.35 cables. John | It's simple. Cisco doesn't, to my knowledge, | make a back to back cable. I'm not allowed to | order a third party cable. | Ray M. | | -Original Message- | From: John Neiberger [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] | Sent: Friday, April 13, 2001 4:42 PM | To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Subject: Re: back to back cables [7:527] | | | Do I even dare ask why you are allowed to use two regular cables but not | a back to back cable? | | Hmm... while writing that I just thought of one good reason. Whenever | I order a back-to-back cable I usually get an RS-232 cable. This would | tend to limit the clock rate between the two routers. If I needed a | higher speed I'd have to find a V.35 back to back cable which seem to be | harder to find. | | If you want V.35: | | CAB-V35MT= | CAB-V35FC= | | If you want RS-232: | | CAB-232MT= | CAB-232FC= | | HTH, | John | | >>> "Ray Mosely" 4/13/01 4:29:14 PM >>> | I'm sorry to bring up this old old old | thread, but I'm in a situation where I | need a back to back cable for some 2501's, | but I'm not allowed to use a back to back | cable. | | There are two bona fide Cisco cables which | can be hooked together to make one back | to back cable (at three times the price | of a back to back). Anybody know the | part numbers of the Cisco cables? It's | for back to back on the WAN ports. | | Thanks, | Ray Mosely | CCNA, MCSE | 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] ___ Send a cool gift with your E-Card http://www.bluemountain.com/giftcenter/ Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=697&t=527 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: back to back cables [7:527]
cisco does have their own back to back cable I have 2 or 3 in my lab. When I get a chance I check them for part numbers but I am certain they have the Cisco Logo! Also, do you buy your CAT5 cables from cisco? Rick ""Ray Mosely"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > It's simple. Cisco doesn't, to my knowledge, > make a back to back cable. I'm not allowed to > order a third party cable. > Ray M. > > -Original Message- > From: John Neiberger [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, April 13, 2001 4:42 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: back to back cables [7:527] > > > Do I even dare ask why you are allowed to use two regular cables but not > a back to back cable? > > Hmm... while writing that I just thought of one good reason. Whenever > I order a back-to-back cable I usually get an RS-232 cable. This would > tend to limit the clock rate between the two routers. If I needed a > higher speed I'd have to find a V.35 back to back cable which seem to be > harder to find. > > If you want V.35: > > CAB-V35MT= > CAB-V35FC= > > If you want RS-232: > > CAB-232MT= > CAB-232FC= > > HTH, > John > > >>> "Ray Mosely" 4/13/01 4:29:14 PM >>> > I'm sorry to bring up this old old old > thread, but I'm in a situation where I > need a back to back cable for some 2501's, > but I'm not allowed to use a back to back > cable. > > There are two bona fide Cisco cables which > can be hooked together to make one back > to back cable (at three times the price > of a back to back). Anybody know the > part numbers of the Cisco cables? It's > for back to back on the WAN ports. > > Thanks, > Ray Mosely > CCNA, MCSE > 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] Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=694&t=527 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: back to back cables [7:527]
Get the cables you need from Bob lowery @ [EMAIL PROTECTED] if you can't get it from him , then go to http://www.symmic.com You won't have to pay those prices.. would $30 or less do... Nigel.. - Original Message - From: Jason J. Roysdon To: Sent: Saturday, April 14, 2001 9:04 PM Subject: Re: back to back cables [7:527] > I'm looking at a cable in my lab, CAB-HD60MMX-5, which is a nice short cable > (5ft) and is DTE 60 pin on one side and DCE 60 pin on the other. It's got > the Cisco blue and the housing looks just like my other Cisco back-to-back > cable which is actually a DCE-to-v.35 & v.35-to-DTE cable (the only thing > it's missing is a Cisco logo, but not all Cisco gear has the logo). That's > a Cisco part number and I'm finding it all over the place when I do a Google > search, so I'm sure you can find it direct from Cisco with their markup. > I'd rather just pay $45 for a "Cisco Equivalent Cable" from Pacific Cable > and the like: > http://www.pacificcable.com/CiscoCables.htm > > Looks like it's available in 3ft, 5ft & 10ft variations > CAB-HD60MMX-3 LFH 60M TO LFH60M CISCO ROUTER DCE TO CISCO ROUTER DTE LFH60 > M/M CROSSOVER 3 FT. $45.00 Quantity: > > CAB-HD60MMX-5 LFH 60M TO LFH60M CISCO ROUTER DCE TO CISCO ROUTER DTE LFH60 > M/M CROSSOVER 5 FT. $46.00 Quantity: > > CAB-HD60MMX-10 LFH 60M TO LFH60M CISCO ROUTER DCE TO CISCO ROUTER DTE LFH60 > M/M CROSSOVER 10 FT. $48.00 > > -- > Jason Roysdon, CCNP+Security/CCDP, MCSE, CNA, Network+, A+ > List email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Homepage: http://jason.artoo.net/ > > > > ""Ray Mosely"" wrote in message > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > It's simple. Cisco doesn't, to my knowledge, > > make a back to back cable. I'm not allowed to > > order a third party cable. > > Ray M. > > > > -Original Message- > > From: John Neiberger [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Friday, April 13, 2001 4:42 PM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: Re: back to back cables [7:527] > > > > > > Do I even dare ask why you are allowed to use two regular cables but not > > a back to back cable? > > > > Hmm... while writing that I just thought of one good reason. Whenever > > I order a back-to-back cable I usually get an RS-232 cable. This would > > tend to limit the clock rate between the two routers. If I needed a > > higher speed I'd have to find a V.35 back to back cable which seem to be > > harder to find. > > > > If you want V.35: > > > > CAB-V35MT= > > CAB-V35FC= > > > > If you want RS-232: > > > > CAB-232MT= > > CAB-232FC= > > > > HTH, > > John > > > > >>> "Ray Mosely" 4/13/01 4:29:14 PM >>> > > I'm sorry to bring up this old old old > > thread, but I'm in a situation where I > > need a back to back cable for some 2501's, > > but I'm not allowed to use a back to back > > cable. > > > > There are two bona fide Cisco cables which > > can be hooked together to make one back > > to back cable (at three times the price > > of a back to back). Anybody know the > > part numbers of the Cisco cables? It's > > for back to back on the WAN ports. > > > > Thanks, > > Ray Mosely > > CCNA, MCSE > > 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] Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=681&t=527 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: back to back cables [7:527]
If you attend Partner training given by Cisco SEs they do have back to back cables with the Cisco logo. Cisco subcontracts most of their manufacturing. These particular cables are made by LoDanWest. Many Cisco cables have LDW on them. If you contact LoDan to order the cables they will provide the exact same cable except that it is black in color and doesn't have the Cisco logo. Cisco does not allow them to sell cables with the Cisco logo except to Cisco itself - who then sells them to us. You can buy similar cables elsewhere for less money. > -Original Message- > From: Ray Mosely [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Saturday, April 14, 2001 6:25 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: back to back cables [7:527] > > > It's simple. Cisco doesn't, to my knowledge, > make a back to back cable. I'm not allowed to > order a third party cable. > Ray M. > > -Original Message- > From: John Neiberger [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, April 13, 2001 4:42 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: back to back cables [7:527] > > > Do I even dare ask why you are allowed to use two regular > cables but not > a back to back cable? > > Hmm... while writing that I just thought of one good reason. Whenever > I order a back-to-back cable I usually get an RS-232 cable. > This would > tend to limit the clock rate between the two routers. If I needed a > higher speed I'd have to find a V.35 back to back cable which > seem to be > harder to find. > > If you want V.35: > > CAB-V35MT= > CAB-V35FC= > > If you want RS-232: > > CAB-232MT= > CAB-232FC= > > HTH, > John Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=680&t=527 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: back to back cables [7:527]
I'm looking at a cable in my lab, CAB-HD60MMX-5, which is a nice short cable (5ft) and is DTE 60 pin on one side and DCE 60 pin on the other. It's got the Cisco blue and the housing looks just like my other Cisco back-to-back cable which is actually a DCE-to-v.35 & v.35-to-DTE cable (the only thing it's missing is a Cisco logo, but not all Cisco gear has the logo). That's a Cisco part number and I'm finding it all over the place when I do a Google search, so I'm sure you can find it direct from Cisco with their markup. I'd rather just pay $45 for a "Cisco Equivalent Cable" from Pacific Cable and the like: http://www.pacificcable.com/CiscoCables.htm Looks like it's available in 3ft, 5ft & 10ft variations CAB-HD60MMX-3 LFH 60M TO LFH60M CISCO ROUTER DCE TO CISCO ROUTER DTE LFH60 M/M CROSSOVER 3 FT. $45.00 Quantity: CAB-HD60MMX-5 LFH 60M TO LFH60M CISCO ROUTER DCE TO CISCO ROUTER DTE LFH60 M/M CROSSOVER 5 FT. $46.00 Quantity: CAB-HD60MMX-10 LFH 60M TO LFH60M CISCO ROUTER DCE TO CISCO ROUTER DTE LFH60 M/M CROSSOVER 10 FT. $48.00 -- Jason Roysdon, CCNP+Security/CCDP, MCSE, CNA, Network+, A+ List email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Homepage: http://jason.artoo.net/ ""Ray Mosely"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > It's simple. Cisco doesn't, to my knowledge, > make a back to back cable. I'm not allowed to > order a third party cable. > Ray M. > > -Original Message- > From: John Neiberger [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, April 13, 2001 4:42 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: back to back cables [7:527] > > > Do I even dare ask why you are allowed to use two regular cables but not > a back to back cable? > > Hmm... while writing that I just thought of one good reason. Whenever > I order a back-to-back cable I usually get an RS-232 cable. This would > tend to limit the clock rate between the two routers. If I needed a > higher speed I'd have to find a V.35 back to back cable which seem to be > harder to find. > > If you want V.35: > > CAB-V35MT= > CAB-V35FC= > > If you want RS-232: > > CAB-232MT= > CAB-232FC= > > HTH, > John > > >>> "Ray Mosely" 4/13/01 4:29:14 PM >>> > I'm sorry to bring up this old old old > thread, but I'm in a situation where I > need a back to back cable for some 2501's, > but I'm not allowed to use a back to back > cable. > > There are two bona fide Cisco cables which > can be hooked together to make one back > to back cable (at three times the price > of a back to back). Anybody know the > part numbers of the Cisco cables? It's > for back to back on the WAN ports. > > Thanks, > Ray Mosely > CCNA, MCSE > 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] Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=678&t=527 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: back to back cables [7:527]
It's simple. Cisco doesn't, to my knowledge, make a back to back cable. I'm not allowed to order a third party cable. Ray M. -Original Message- From: John Neiberger [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, April 13, 2001 4:42 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: back to back cables [7:527] Do I even dare ask why you are allowed to use two regular cables but not a back to back cable? Hmm... while writing that I just thought of one good reason. Whenever I order a back-to-back cable I usually get an RS-232 cable. This would tend to limit the clock rate between the two routers. If I needed a higher speed I'd have to find a V.35 back to back cable which seem to be harder to find. If you want V.35: CAB-V35MT= CAB-V35FC= If you want RS-232: CAB-232MT= CAB-232FC= HTH, John >>> "Ray Mosely" 4/13/01 4:29:14 PM >>> I'm sorry to bring up this old old old thread, but I'm in a situation where I need a back to back cable for some 2501's, but I'm not allowed to use a back to back cable. There are two bona fide Cisco cables which can be hooked together to make one back to back cable (at three times the price of a back to back). Anybody know the part numbers of the Cisco cables? It's for back to back on the WAN ports. Thanks, Ray Mosely CCNA, MCSE FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=672&t=527 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: back to back cables [7:527]
Ray, Visit the http://www.pacificcable.com It has all Cisco cables and part number. ""Ray Mosely"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > I'm sorry to bring up this old old old > thread, but I'm in a situation where I > need a back to back cable for some 2501's, > but I'm not allowed to use a back to back > cable. > > There are two bona fide Cisco cables which > can be hooked together to make one back > to back cable (at three times the price > of a back to back). Anybody know the > part numbers of the Cisco cables? It's > for back to back on the WAN ports. > > Thanks, > Ray Mosely > CCNA, MCSE > FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html > Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=559&t=527 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: back to back cables [7:527]
Do I even dare ask why you are allowed to use two regular cables but not a back to back cable? Hmm... while writing that I just thought of one good reason. Whenever I order a back-to-back cable I usually get an RS-232 cable. This would tend to limit the clock rate between the two routers. If I needed a higher speed I'd have to find a V.35 back to back cable which seem to be harder to find. If you want V.35: CAB-V35MT= CAB-V35FC= If you want RS-232: CAB-232MT= CAB-232FC= HTH, John >>> "Ray Mosely" 4/13/01 4:29:14 PM >>> I'm sorry to bring up this old old old thread, but I'm in a situation where I need a back to back cable for some 2501's, but I'm not allowed to use a back to back cable. There are two bona fide Cisco cables which can be hooked together to make one back to back cable (at three times the price of a back to back). Anybody know the part numbers of the Cisco cables? It's for back to back on the WAN ports. Thanks, Ray Mosely CCNA, MCSE FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=531&t=527 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
back to back cables [7:527]
I'm sorry to bring up this old old old thread, but I'm in a situation where I need a back to back cable for some 2501's, but I'm not allowed to use a back to back cable. There are two bona fide Cisco cables which can be hooked together to make one back to back cable (at three times the price of a back to back). Anybody know the part numbers of the Cisco cables? It's for back to back on the WAN ports. Thanks, Ray Mosely CCNA, MCSE Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=527&t=527 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
