Okay, like I said, it is good for the test taker.Your point is
accepted.
Theo
"Tim O'Brien"
Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
06/13/2002 07:59 PM
Please respond to "Tim O'Brien"
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cc:
Subject: RE: No
""Thomas Larus"" wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> I don't think Cisco is primarily concerned with the "cost" of outfitting
> their own labs with 6500s. After all, their cost is MUCH lower than the
> list prices. I think Cisco is being considerate of OUR wallets. T
Besides we are being tested on technologies, not products.
""Thomas Larus"" wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> I don't think Cisco is primarily concerned with the "cost" of outfitting
> their own labs with 6500s. After all, their cost is MUCH lower than the
> list
I don't think Cisco is primarily concerned with the "cost" of outfitting
their own labs with 6500s. After all, their cost is MUCH lower than the
list prices. I think Cisco is being considerate of OUR wallets. This is the
same reason they don't have 7200 routers and 7500 routers on the equipment
Theo,
By no means is the 3550 replacing the 6500 in a real world scenario. The
3550 is an "IDF" non-chassis switch. The most density you can get is 48
10/100 ports. However, the IOS structure and layer 3 capabilities allow you
to mimic a lot of the new functionality that you have in the 6500. Thi
5 matches
Mail list logo
