-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On new builds I prefer to run cabling to each rack and use 65xx (not the 13 slot) for distribution layer. Hard to install cable into a crowded cage/datacenter, so sometimes a switch per rack makes sense.
Drew Weaver wrote: > What is the 'defacto' top of rack 10/100/1000 48 port access switch > most folks are buying up these days from the big C? > > Does anyone recommend any lower cost 10/100/1000 switches from other > vendors that 'work just fine' for this limited purpose? > > These 48 port switches would just be used to connect machines to > VLANs (over uplink/trunks) which are on the distribution/core layer. > > If you have the right server/client density does it ever make sense to > use a 6513 for the l2 connectivity or is it always better to use sep. > switches? > > It seems like using 11 sep. switches would add a lot of management > headaches over just having a redundant 6500 (pwr/sup) does anyone have any > opinions/advice on this point? > > Thanks! > > -Drew > _______________________________________________ > cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp > archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFItsohw+p9Y9BHZ8kRAklyAKC8axEV9jAqI4L2lRZrb2l9+8giPACfYzl4 L+uvFh9rDjZTZZUFEfXvzAQ= =fFtr -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
