Re: Catalyst 3550s or 3750s in enterprise data center and [7:94340] posted 11/02/2004
- Subject: Re: Catalyst 3550s or 3750s in enterprise data center and [7:94340]
- From: "Larry Letterman" <lletterm@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2004 11:27:29 -0500
Thats only because we have not bought chucks company yet...:)
> BTW, Cisco isn't the only player in town. If cost is your driver.
> ""Camilo Tesone"" wrote in message
> > Guys and Gals,
> > I'm fighting a battle with management over the type of switch/router to
> > put
> > in our Data Center and wired vs. Wireless networking. We have
> > approximately
> > 180 Servers providing services such as email, file servers, applications
> > servers, web servers..etc ERP applications,...etc for approximatley
> > users. Currently, we have two Catalyst 5500s, each dual homed to our
> > Catalyst 6500s with Gig links and each connected together via
> > Etherchannel.
> > Both share the same VLANs via VTP and trunking and both are running HSRP
> > on
> > their RSMs.
> > I'm recommending two Catalyst 6509s, architected the same as the current
> > two
> > 5500s. The 6500s would have triple-speed modules and a Sup720 with an
> > MSFC3.
> > I'm fighting against a proposal to replace the Catalyst 5500s with
> > Catalyst
> > 3550s or Catalyst 3750s, which would also perform routing with enhanced
> > images. Their rational is the 6500s are too costly. Its a difference
> > between
> > $73,000 for the two Catalyst 6500s and $36,000 for the Catalyst 3550s or
> > 3750s.
> > Who builds a Data Center of this size with access layer switches? It
> > seems
> > like lunacy to me. Does anyone have an opinion on this and could direct
> > to some case studies or links regarding recommended Data Center designs?
> > I'm
> > concerned about the performance of the access layer switches at Layer 2,
> > but
> > more concerned about their ability to route. Does anyone have any
> > experience
> > using Catalyst 3550s or 3750s for routing and what their limitations
> > Uhhhh!!!!
> > I find it frustrating that we're in a position to continuously fight for
> > what would seem common sense to most network engineers.
> > We are also fighting a proposal to replace the wired Ethernet with
> > wireless for a number of buildings on our campus with several thousand
> > users. I also consider this lunacy. We have 802.11b now but even with a
> > g, we would be downgrading our Ethernet from switched to shared and
> > ourselves a whole lot of pain. At the same time they propose this, they
> > talk
> > about providing VOIP and Video on Demand to this population of users.
> > These
> > are managers with little or no practical experience with networks who
> > behave
> > like they are god's gift to the network industry. Uhhhhhhhhh!!!!!
> > Heeeelpppp!!!!
> > Anyone have any ammunition for me to fight this one?
> > Thanks.
Message Posted at:
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html