The 4900m is a robust switch with plenty of BW on the fabric. Port density is not plentiful but.......Using the twinG is a choice - just check on the limitation of use not only with using them on the onboard X2 slots, but also ASIC restrictions. I know that the SUP6E (the 4900m SUP?) uses stub asics to the fabric and has limitations for combining 1G and 10G on the same asic.
The Juniper and HP boxes that others have suggested are good boxes too. It appears you have some time to investigate many solutions. The shortage of the 4900 and other such products are derived as a result of limited component production from Cisco's manufacturing plants (overseas). But the suggestion that Cisco is pushing other products (Nexus) is plausible. -nuff said. -kevin. -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Jason Gurtz Sent: Thursday, January 28, 2010 15:34 To: [email protected] Subject: [c-nsp] [SUMMARY]: 4900M vs. 4503 for core > Is there anything glaringly wrong with choosing the 4900M using twin-gig > based connections to the access layer over the 4503 Sup6 and 46xx line > cards in our situation? Thanks all for the replies! A person also responded privately with the opinion that most people want Netflow down the road. Unfortunately, since Netflow has been removed from the 45xx with the Sup6 it would require 65xx at $$++. Squarely in the want vs. need bucket for us Unfortunately, I left out that that most of the gig uplink connections are fiber so a 3560G doesn't have enough SFP ports. I did find the WS-C3750G-12S-E which looks like the good low-cost option. On the minuses side, it's a softswitch, and no 10G uplinks for linking in the server access switches. The main downside here is advocating for their replacement and purchasing strategies around here. eBay, used equip., etc... are pretty much verboten. Basically, if we buy these now, they'll be here in 5 years and forklifting the network core could be painful. Point well taken on the stacking related maintenance downtime issue. We plan on doing pure routing and GLBP so thankfully this wouldn't affect us. This issue will bite us with the server access layer. :( I'll join the many who want this problem to go away. The availability issues with 45xx and 49xx shouldn't be a problem as 4507's are being spec'ed for some access switches and we have until summertime to do this. It's interesting though, makes me wonder if it's just really high demand, or C pushing other platforms. I discovered the 4928-10G, but the 4900M config comes in cheaper, apparently due to only needing one 8 port card. I'm assuming the 2:1 oversubscription is not an issue when running these 10G ports at 1G. Only thing is 2000W of power supply vs. 600W. It does seem silly to do the twingig thing; if only there was a 20-port sfp halfcard! Thanks again, ~JasonG _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/ This e-mail, including any attachments and response string, may contain proprietary information which is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is for the intended recipient only. If you are not the intended recipient or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, please notify the author by return e-mail and delete this message and any attachment immediately. If you are not the intended recipient you must not use, disclose, distribute, forward, copy, print or rely on this e-mail in any way except as permitted by the author. _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
