Ahhh, gotcha. I've got no experience with that as of yet. We're putting in 8 2248s pretty shortly which I was going to dual-home for redundancy, but that project is still in the early stages. I'd also love to hear what other folks have experienced with this kind of setup.
On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 2:32 PM, manderson <[email protected]> wrote: > S > orry, dual sup meaning each 2k is dual homed to each 5k. > > > On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 9:36 AM, Mike Hale <[email protected]> > wrote: >> >> Can you clarify by what you mean by dual-sup? >> >> The 5k is single sup only isn't it? >> >> On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 8:44 AM, manderson <[email protected]> wrote: >> > Hello, we currently use a single sup design in one of our DC's and we're >> > playing w/a dual sup design for single homed servers in our other DC. >> > Cisco A/S, our SE, and myself are not particularly fond of the dual sup >> > design. However, the lead engineer appears to be set on going this >> > route. >> > >> > Other than having two different architectures at two different DC's, and >> > designing a network to support single homed servers, I'm looking for >> > additional pros/cons as points of discussion. >> > >> > TIA, >> > ChiefWFB >> > _______________________________________________ >> > cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] >> > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp >> > archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/ >> >> >> >> -- >> 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 > > -- 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
