Re: [c-nsp] Level 2 switch 1U, 4 x 10GE

[Sachin Gupta (sagupta)]

That's an older model. 4948E and 4948E-F with reverse airflow are orderable.


On May 23, 2016, at 6:15 PM, Lucas Lazaro 
<lucas.laz...@gmail.com<mailto:lucas.laz...@gmail.com>> wrote:


WS-C4948-E are end of sale since August 2013...

El lun., may. 23, 2016 19:22, Sachin Gupta (sagupta) 
<sagu...@cisco.com<mailto:sagu...@cisco.com>> escribi?:
Can you use Catalyst 4948E?

http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/products/collateral/switches/catalyst-4948e-ethernet-switch/data_sheet_c78-598933.html

Sachin

On 5/23/16, 12:49 PM, "cisco-nsp on behalf of Sean Caron" 
<cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net<mailto:cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net> on 
behalf of sca...@diablonet.net<mailto:sca...@diablonet.net>> wrote:

>On Mon, 23 May 2016, lis...@cutre.net<mailto:lis...@cutre.net> wrote:
>
>> I know JunOS (besides I have the JNCIP, I've worked a lot with them), and I 
>> would love to buy Juniper, but this is a large company and we have 
>> agreements that can't be forgeted
>
>Thanks anyway
>
>Fernando Garcia
>
>> El 23/5/2016, a las 17:44, Gert Doering 
>> <g...@greenie.muc.de<mailto:g...@greenie.muc.de>> escribi?:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Mon, May 23, 2016 at 05:36:18PM +0200, 
>> lis...@cutre.net<mailto:lis...@cutre.net> wrote:
>>> Sorry, we?re a Cisco house (not my preference, but?) that?s why I posted 
>>> the question in c-nsp and not in j-nsp.
>>
>> I understand that - we used to be a Cisco house as well, but Cisco so
>> missed the boat in L2 switches (expensive, too few 10G ports, but to
>> compensate, too small buffers) that we started looking elsewhere...
>>
>> If you have enough of them, investing the few days to learn the
>> ickiness of JunOS-for-switches might be well worth it.
>>
>> gert
>> --
>> USENET is *not* the non-clickable part of WWW!
>>   
>> //www.muc.de/~gert/<http://www.muc.de/~gert/>
>> Gert Doering - Munich, Germany 
>> g...@greenie.muc.de<mailto:g...@greenie.muc.de>
>> fax: +49-89-35655025
>> g...@net.informatik.tu-muenchen.de<mailto:g...@net.informatik.tu-muenchen.de>
>
>Cisco just does not have an offering in this product space anymore. We
>used to buy a ton of Catalyst 2360 switches here but now that they are
>discontinued, we've also moved to the J EX3300 and have been quite happy
>with it. No interop problems with our Nexus switches one layer up. Wish
>Cisco would re-introduce a competitive product in this segment.
>
>Best,
>
>Sean
>___
>cisco-nsp mailing list  
>cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net<mailto:cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net>
>https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
>archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/

___
cisco-nsp mailing list  
cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net<mailto:cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net>
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
___
cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/

Re: [c-nsp] Level 2 switch 1U, 4 x 10GE

[Sachin Gupta (sagupta)]

Can you use Catalyst 4948E?

http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/products/collateral/switches/catalyst-4948e-ethernet-switch/data_sheet_c78-598933.html

Sachin

On 5/23/16, 12:49 PM, "cisco-nsp on behalf of Sean Caron" 
 wrote:

>On Mon, 23 May 2016, lis...@cutre.net wrote:
>
>> I know JunOS (besides I have the JNCIP, I’ve worked a lot with them), and I 
>> would love to buy Juniper, but this is a large company and we have 
>> agreements that can’t be forgeted….
>
>Thanks anyway
>
>Fernando Garcia
>
>> El 23/5/2016, a las 17:44, Gert Doering  escribió:
>> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> On Mon, May 23, 2016 at 05:36:18PM +0200, lis...@cutre.net wrote:
>>> Sorry, we?re a Cisco house (not my preference, but?) that?s why I posted 
>>> the question in c-nsp and not in j-nsp.
>> 
>> I understand that - we used to be a Cisco house as well, but Cisco so
>> missed the boat in L2 switches (expensive, too few 10G ports, but to
>> compensate, too small buffers) that we started looking elsewhere...
>> 
>> If you have enough of them, investing the few days to learn the 
>> ickiness of JunOS-for-switches might be well worth it.
>> 
>> gert
>> -- 
>> USENET is *not* the non-clickable part of WWW!
>>   //www.muc.de/~gert/
>> Gert Doering - Munich, Germany 
>> g...@greenie.muc.de
>> fax: +49-89-35655025
>> g...@net.informatik.tu-muenchen.de
>
>Cisco just does not have an offering in this product space anymore. We 
>used to buy a ton of Catalyst 2360 switches here but now that they are 
>discontinued, we've also moved to the J EX3300 and have been quite happy 
>with it. No interop problems with our Nexus switches one layer up. Wish 
>Cisco would re-introduce a competitive product in this segment.
>
>Best,
>
>Sean
>___
>cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
>https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
>archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/

___
cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/

Re: [c-nsp] Cisco's new 4500-X 10G Aggregation Switches

[Sachin Gupta (sagupta)]

Hello,

The pricing has been finalized. The 4500-X comes in following configs
(with one power supply):

All list price:
16p SFP+ is $24k (capable of 64k routes)
24p SFP+ is $32k (capable of 64k routes)
32p SFP+ is $40k (capable of 256k routes)
40p SFP+ is $48k (capable of 256k routes)
2nd Power Supply is $2k
IP Base is default, full routing comes in Enterprise Services license
which is $10k

Other info:
Can use AC/AC, DC/DC, or AC/DC redundant power supplies
Front-to-back or back-to-front airflow configurations available
Consumes about 320W with 40p and SFP+ SR optics configured
21 inches deep, 1RU
Any SFP+ port can take a Gig SFP as well

Expected orderability for 32/40p configs is in March, with FCS in April,
with 16/24p about 3 months later. 8xSFP+ uplink module today with plans
for 2x40G uplinks in about a year. No plans for 100G.

Sachin

--
  Sachin Gupta | Sr. Director, Product Management | Cisco


-Original Message-
From: cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net
[mailto:cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Jason Gurtz
Sent: Friday, February 10, 2012 6:19 AM
To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Cisco's new 4500-X 10G Aggregation Switches

 So finally - a 10G 1RU SFP+ access device.  It seem to be targeted at 
 enterprise aggregation but I imagine would have some appeal in service

 provide space too given the form factor and the fact that the only 10G

 alternates are 3560E-12D's (with X2), Nexus, and upwards from there is

 of course the 4500/6500 chassis based units.

Cat45xx-sup7 in a nice little box? Looks like a much improved 4900M in
many ways (1U-ness, SFP+-ness, perf upgrade, airflow path). Moves from
800 to 1100BTU/hr, but can't see that mattering in the applications I'm
thinking of.

Hopefully cheaper than the Nexus5500/2000fex route for us smaller folks.

~JasonG

___
cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/

___
cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/

Re: [c-nsp] Cisco's new 4500-X 10G Aggregation Switches

[Sachin Gupta (sagupta)]

32MB centralized buffers, sames as Supervisor Engine 7-E on Catalyst
4500. Still store-and-forward.

--
  Sachin Gupta | Sr. Director, Product Management | Cisco


-Original Message-
From: Robert Hass [mailto:robh...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Friday, February 10, 2012 12:38 PM
To: Sachin Gupta (sagupta)
Cc: Jason Gurtz; cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Cisco's new 4500-X 10G Aggregation Switches

On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 6:03 PM, Sachin Gupta (sagupta)
sagu...@cisco.com wrote:
 16p SFP+ is $24k (capable of 64k routes) 24p SFP+ is $32k (capable of 
 64k routes)
[...]

Thanks. Pricing and first technical aspects look promising :)

Can you also write how big amount of buffers it has ? (4900M has 16MB)
Is it's still store-and-forward switch or cut-though ?

Rob

___
cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/

Re: [c-nsp] Cisco's new 4500-X 10G Aggregation Switches

[Sachin Gupta (sagupta)]

Full IPv6 support at FCS. What I mean by full is feature parity with
Supervisor Engine 7-E on Catalyst 4500 platform.

No extra license. Route tables do get cut in half if you're looking for
IPv6 totals.

Sachin

--
  Sachin Gupta | Sr. Director, Product Management | Cisco


-Original Message-
From: Jared Mauch [mailto:ja...@puck.nether.net] 
Sent: Friday, February 10, 2012 11:45 AM
To: Gert Doering
Cc: Sachin Gupta (sagupta); cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Cisco's new 4500-X 10G Aggregation Switches


On Feb 10, 2012, at 1:58 PM, Gert Doering wrote:

 Hi,
 
 On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 09:03:10AM -0800, Sachin Gupta (sagupta)
wrote:
 The pricing has been finalized. The 4500-X comes in following configs

 (with one power supply):
 
 All list price:
 16p SFP+ is $24k (capable of 64k routes) 24p SFP+ is $32k (capable of

 64k routes) 32p SFP+ is $40k (capable of 256k routes) 40p SFP+ is 
 $48k (capable of 256k routes) 2nd Power Supply is $2k IP Base is 
 default, full routing comes in Enterprise Services license which is 
 $10k
 
 What about IPv6?
 
  - reasonably full support at FCS?
  - extra license?
  - hardware cannot do that caveats?

Nobody would ship hardware that doesn't do IPv6 in 2012, nearly 8 months
after world IPv6 day, and only a few short weeks before the full-launch.

Personally, I'm also amazed cisco still sells non-gigabit switches in
2011/2012.  I thought they were a technology company.

- Jared

___
cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/

Re: [c-nsp] x6148 vs. x6548

[Sachin Gupta (sagupta)]

The 6548 has a single 8G fabric connection.

Sachin

- Original Message -
From: cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net
To: Geoffrey Pendery ge...@pendery.net; Bill Blackford 
bblackf...@nwresd.k12.or.us
Cc: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Sent: Sat Jun 13 20:48:17 2009
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] x6148 vs. x6548

Geoffrey,

A small correction. The x6548 is an 8G card, but it has 2 fabric connections, 
so the limit would be 16G.

As long as you do not use the other 7 ports out of each 8 port group, each port 
group can give you 1G, but take into consideration that the x6148 is a classic 
card, so it has no fabric connections, and uses the shared bus.

In general the x6148 is not supposed to be a core card. It's for connecting 
low end desktops etc.

Arie

-Original Message-
From: cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net 
[mailto:cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Geoffrey Pendery
Sent: Friday, June 12, 2009 16:36
To: Bill Blackford
Cc: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] x6148 vs. x6548

Well, with the 6548, you're still going to be limited to 8 Gbps,
rather than 6 Gbps.  It's a CEF256 card, which means it has an 8 Gbps
fabric connection to the supervisor, instead of just sharing the 32
Gbps like the 6148 does.  So if you're looking to drive more than a
gig through an Etherchannel, it will do it, but only for a limited
number of them.  The 6748 would bump your bottleneck up to 40 Gbps.

I have a question of my own, since this subject has come up a time or
two - regarding the 6148's, the statement is made a couple times that
Etherchannel will get you port redundancy but no extra bandwidth,
since the ASIC is only a gig.  But if I distribute my channel across
two slots, say Gig 1/1 and Gig 2/1, does that get me around the gig
limit?  Or even Gig 1/1 and Gig 1/48, since it's separate ASICs?
Logic tells me yes, but I've heard the 1 gig limit mentioned as if
it's a hard platform limitation, not just a result of a particular
bottleneck.  My instinctive behavior with channels is to span them
across blades anyway, to guard against blade failure


-Geoff


On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 9:20 PM, Bill
Blackfordbblackf...@nwresd.k12.or.us wrote:
 I've recently learned that the ws-x6148-ge-tx has 6 gig ASICs, one for every 
 8 ports thusly rendering this line card to a 8:1 oversubscription ratio. I've 
 also learned that an etherchannel is limited to 1 gig, great for redundancy, 
 but slow as all get up.

 I'm buying a ws-x6548-ge-tx in hope that it can do much better (I didn't have 
 enough in my budget for a x6748). How does the 6548 compare to the 6148? I 
 have a pair of shiny new sup720-3bxl's.

 Thank you for any insight from the field as Cisco's site seems best suited 
 for the marketing of products.

 -b

 --
 Bill Blackford
 Senior Network Engineer
 Technology Systems Group
 Northwest Regional ESD

 my /home away from home

 ___
 cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-...@puck.nether.net
 https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
 archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/

___
cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
___
cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
___
cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/

Re: [c-nsp] Cat6500 - Support for MPLS and IPv6

[Sachin Gupta (sagupta)]

The Cat6500 supports MPLS and IPv6 and has a strong roadmap for both.
The only exception is that Modular IOS did not support MPLS and IPv6
with SXF but this support was added with SXH.

Sachin 

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Juno Guy
Sent: Sunday, March 30, 2008 7:52 PM
To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: [c-nsp] Cat6500 - Support for MPLS and IPv6

Hi All,

It is my understanding that somewhere after the 12.2SX release MPLS and
IPv6 will no longer be supported on the 6500 (but will continue to be
supported on the 7600 as I understand).  Does anyone know why this was
and where I can find on Cisco website when this was announced and what
other features will not be supported on 6500 going forward?


Thanks,
- Juno
___
cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
___
cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/

Re: [c-nsp] Cisco ME-6524 platform architecture

[Sachin Gupta (sagupta)]

Hi James,

I am the Product Manager for the ME-6524 platform. I am very interested
to hear about your deployment scenario and can help answer your
questions. 

The ME-6524 has a similar architecture to Sup32 with the one key
difference that it supports PFC3C rather than the PFC3B on the Sup32.
Sup32 architecture documents can be leveraged to understand the ME-6524.

Please feel free to contact me directly if you have any more questions.

Sachin 

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of James Humphris
Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 3:11 AM
To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: [c-nsp] Cisco ME-6524 platform architecture

Dear all,

 

I stumbled across this excellent forum yesterday whilst trying to gain
some information on the platform architecture of the Cisco ME-6524. I
have been extensively testing this device for a couple of months now,
using a mixture of local switching, multiplex-uni and EoMPLS with
MPLS-TE  FRR. So far, it has performed remarkably well, especially
considering its price point as an entry level device to the Cisco 6500
family.

 

I do however have a question regarding the platform architecture of the
box. As I'm sure you all know, the architecture of the modular 6500
series is very well documented by Cisco, including details of the
modules (PFC, MSFC etc..),types of ASIC (Pinnacle, Medusa, Earl, Tycho
and Superman etc..) and how they interoperate at a high level. 

 

The part I'm struggling with is how this relates to the fixed
configuration of the ME-6524. I appreciate that its based upon the
SUP-720, and utilises MSFC2A with PFC3C, but I when I issue a show
asic-version slot 1, I don't see any ASIC names that I recognise:

 

nsn1#sho asic-version slot 1

Module in slot 1 has 5 type(s) of ASICs

ASIC Name  Count  Version

 KUMA  1  (2.0)

 HYPERION  1  (6.0)

 R2D2  1  (2.0)

  DHANUSH  2  (2.0)

 VISHAKHA  8  (1.0)

 

Can anyone help with some more detailed information relating to the
platform configuration of this device?

 

Many thanks in advance

 

James Humphris

IP Engineering, Nexagent Ltd.

 

___
cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
___
cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/