Re: [c-nsp] Solid L2 switch - 2948G or 3548-XL-EN?

Anything that used ACLs was suspect. The L2 support was very weak. We were so impressed with the 2948G-L3, we took them out of service, put them in store until they'd depreciated, and then put them in the bin. I'm not sure I can think of a configuration that isn't inherently flawed in some

Re: [c-nsp] Solid L2 switch - 2948G or 3548-XL-EN?

Hi, On Sat, Jun 23, 2007 at 01:06:38PM -0400, Lamar Owen wrote: On Wednesday 20 June 2007, Gert Doering wrote: On Tue, Jun 19, 2007 at 10:25:28PM -0400, Jeff Kell wrote: Wasn't the 2948G the odd one that could do L3, but only the uplinks? That was the 2948G-L3, which was EOLed very

Re: [c-nsp] Solid L2 switch - 2948G or 3548-XL-EN?

Hi, On Sat, Jun 23, 2007 at 03:47:01PM -0400, Lamar Owen wrote: I was mostly curious if someone had had issues with them, other than these documented limitations. Some of the worst problems we experienced: - switch suddenly stopping to switch any traffic, requiring a power cylce (we had

Re: [c-nsp] Solid L2 switch - 2948G or 3548-XL-EN?

At 05:23 AM 6/24/2007, Gert Doering wrote: Hi, On Sat, Jun 23, 2007 at 03:47:01PM -0400, Lamar Owen wrote: I was mostly curious if someone had had issues with them, other than these documented limitations. Some of the worst problems we experienced: - switch suddenly stopping to switch any

Re: [c-nsp] Solid L2 switch - 2948G or 3548-XL-EN?

On Wednesday 20 June 2007, Gert Doering wrote: On Tue, Jun 19, 2007 at 10:25:28PM -0400, Jeff Kell wrote: Wasn't the 2948G the odd one that could do L3, but only the uplinks? That was the 2948G-L3, which was EOLed very quickly, and deserved so. I'd be curious as to why. -- Lamar Owen Chief

Re: [c-nsp] Solid L2 switch - 2948G or 3548-XL-EN?

Lamar Owen wrote: On Saturday 23 June 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Plenty of bugs. *Especially* if you actually tried to use them for L2. The 2948G-L3 is dead, and deservedly so. Ok, what sort of bugs have people experienced with these? I say this because I have three, and if there are

Re: [c-nsp] Solid L2 switch - 2948G or 3548-XL-EN?

I'll second the negative report on the 2948G-L3. I've ran into one (actually a 2980G-L3) in the field and it managed to create a routing loop using two interfaces *that were both running OSPF*. No, I'm not kidding, I got access to another one later and could reproduce the problem - it was a

Re: [c-nsp] Solid L2 switch - 2948G or 3548-XL-EN?

On Tue, Jun 19, 2007, Jeff Kell wrote: Steve Feldman wrote: No, the 3548XL is layer 2 only. I think the layer 3 features started showing up in the 3550 series switches. IIRC, the XLs are all L2 only. The 29nnXLs were strictly 100Mbps while the 35nnXLs had Gig (uplinks). The

Re: [c-nsp] Solid L2 switch - 2948G or 3548-XL-EN?

-nsp] Solid L2 switch - 2948G or 3548-XL-EN? Steve Feldman wrote: No, the 3548XL is layer 2 only. I think the layer 3 features started showing up in the 3550 series switches. IIRC, the XLs are all L2 only. The 29nnXLs were strictly 100Mbps while the 35nnXLs had Gig (uplinks). We still

Re: [c-nsp] Solid L2 switch - 2948G or 3548-XL-EN?

] On Behalf Of Jeff Kell Sent: Wednesday, 20 June 2007 12:25 PM To: Steve Feldman Cc: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Solid L2 switch - 2948G or 3548-XL-EN? Steve Feldman wrote: No, the 3548XL is layer 2 only. I think the layer 3 features started showing up in the 3550 series

Re: [c-nsp] Solid L2 switch - 2948G or 3548-XL-EN?

On Wed, 20 Jun 2007, Skeeve Stevens wrote: The thing I like about the 3500XL over the 2900XL is that the 3500 can do dot1q and ISL and we used then quite a bit to bridge between old and new networks. As far as I could tell the 2900XL's could only do dot1q - well the models I had access to.

[c-nsp] Solid L2 switch - 2948G or 3548-XL-EN?

We are looking for a cheap, but solid L2 48-port switch. My investigations have led me to the WS-C2948G and the WS-C3548-XL-EN. I know the 2948G is CatOS based, and the 3548 is IOS based (and both are EOL'ed). Any experiences with these switches in a light-duty environment would be

Re: [c-nsp] Solid L2 switch - 2948G or 3548-XL-EN?

Subject: [c-nsp] Solid L2 switch - 2948G or 3548-XL-EN? We are looking for a cheap, but solid L2 48-port switch. My investigations have led me to the WS-C2948G and the WS-C3548-XL-EN. I know the 2948G is CatOS based, and the 3548 is IOS based (and both are EOL'ed). Any experiences

Re: [c-nsp] Solid L2 switch - 2948G or 3548-XL-EN?

TCIS List Acct wrote: We are looking for a cheap, but solid L2 48-port switch. My investigations have led me to the WS-C2948G and the WS-C3548-XL-EN. I know the 2948G is CatOS based, and the 3548 is IOS based (and both are EOL'ed). Any experiences with these switches in a light-duty

Re: [c-nsp] Solid L2 switch - 2948G or 3548-XL-EN?

On Jun 19, 2007, at 4:04 PM, Sridhar Ayengar wrote: TCIS List Acct wrote: We are looking for a cheap, but solid L2 48-port switch. My investigations have led me to the WS-C2948G and the WS-C3548-XL-EN. I know the 2948G is CatOS based, and the 3548 is IOS based (and both are EOL'ed).

Re: [c-nsp] Solid L2 switch - 2948G or 3548-XL-EN?

Steve Feldman wrote: No, the 3548XL is layer 2 only. I think the layer 3 features started showing up in the 3550 series switches. IIRC, the XLs are all L2 only. The 29nnXLs were strictly 100Mbps while the 35nnXLs had Gig (uplinks). We still have many of the 3500XL-series switches in