Lewis
Sent: 22 February 2010 21:00
To: Seth Mattinen
Cc: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] what is it with 3550s?
On Mon, 22 Feb 2010, Seth Mattinen wrote:
Exactly. Correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I know the only way
to
get that functionality back is a 6500
On Tuesday 23 February 2010 04:59:38 am Jon Lewis wrote:
Not just any 6500. If you want similar (to the 3550)
ability to police at arbitrary rates via service-policy
in both directions, you need a Sup720.
That's why for pure Layer 2 Ethernet switching, I'm happy
with both the Cisco 3560G
On Tuesday 23 February 2010 04:07:17 am Jon Lewis wrote:
And that's the issue. Normally, progress means newer
gear supports the features of older gear plus new
features. In this case, egress policing took a large
step backwards.
As did SVI support for BFD on the 6500 on later code, but
On Feb 22, 2010, at 17:14, Tom Lanyon t...@netspot.com.au wrote:
On 23/02/2010, at 7:41 AM, Jeff Kell wrote:
On 2/22/2010 3:45 PM, Seth Mattinen wrote:
Exactly. Correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I know the only
way to
get that functionality back is a 6500, and that's a *huge* step.
On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 06:35:11AM -0500, Devon True wrote:
The 4948 does support input and output service policies.
--
Devon
But does not support IPv6 in hardware, IIRC. Something to keep in mind.
--
Brandon Ewing(nicot...@warningg.com)
On 2010-02-23 11:28, Jon Duggan wrote:
Correct me if i'm wrong but I believe you can achieve this with
sup32 also (i think you need pfc3, which the sup32 has), which
is much cheaper than the 720.
Exactly. Policing (and QoS in general) is a function of a PFC.
--
Everything will be okay in the
Hi,
On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 06:23:26PM +0800, Mark Tinka wrote:
As did SVI support for BFD on the 6500 on later code, but
let me not wake Gert and others :-).
Ho humm, I was visiting Cisco Munich today, but I didn't even get to *that*
point. When I started ranting to the AM present about the
On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 22:41:18 +0100, you wrote:
I have no idea how to get that point (BFD is good! make it happen!
on SVI!) across to the relevant people... *sigh*
The SP people do get it, and I'm sure it's now (again) roadmapped for
the 7600, where it's relevant. Whether it'll ever show up on
Hi,
On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 12:42:17AM +0100, Asbjorn Hojmark - Lists wrote:
On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 22:41:18 +0100, you wrote:
I have no idea how to get that point (BFD is good! make it happen!
on SVI!) across to the relevant people... *sigh*
The SP people do get it, and I'm sure it's now
On Wed, 24 Feb 2010 08:29:54 +0100, you wrote:
The SP people do get it, and I'm sure it's now (again) roadmapped for
the 7600, where it's relevant. Whether it'll ever show up on a campus
switch (6500) may be another story.
Now that you mention it. I did not rant over the BU split for at
On Monday 22 February 2010 07:22:13 am Phil Mayers wrote:
We use a pair of 3750s with ipv6 BGP (talking to a vpnv6
peering on a 6500 in fact); image is:
C3750-IPSERVICESK9-M, Version 12.2(52)SE
If only they had v6 support for IS-IS in this code for the
switches. Pipeline, hope it's no
On Monday 22 February 2010 09:19:01 am Bill Blackford wrote:
I'm using EX3200's in this role (OSPF, BGP customer
aggregation).
My only issue with the EX3200's is the last 4-port tax when
you use a 4x 1Gbps uplink module. Otherwise, we've been
happy with them - the code has been terrible for
On Sun, 21 Feb 2010, TCIS List Acct wrote:
We've got a boatload of 3550-EMI's (for colo/server aggregation duties) and
are looking at replacing them in the next 12-24 months The C3750G-24/48-E
series seem to be a good upgrade path (all gig ports, layer3 routing, IPv6
support, fairly easy to
(EST)
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] what is it with 3550s?
On Sun, 21 Feb 2010, TCIS List Acct wrote:
We've got a boatload of 3550-EMI's (for colo/server aggregation duties) and
are looking at replacing them in the next 12-24 months The C3750G-24/48-E
series seem to be a good upgrade path (all
On Mon, 22 Feb 2010, Randy McAnally wrote:
We've always used in/out policing without any issues on physical interfaces on
our 3750G's.
With what sorts of police rates and with what syntax (on egress)?
--
Jon Lewis
---
From: Jon Lewis jle...@lewis.org
To: Randy McAnally r...@fast-serv.com
Cc: cisco-nsp cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Sent: Mon, 22 Feb 2010 14:24:25 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] what is it with 3550s?
On Mon, 22 Feb 2010, Randy McAnally wrote:
We've always used in/out policing without
On Mon, 22 Feb 2010, Randy McAnally wrote:
interface GigabitEthernet1/0/8
switchport access vlan 24
spanning-tree portfast
service-policy input 10Mbps
!
Right...but on the 3750, can you
interface GigabitEthernet1/0/8
switchport access vlan 24
spanning-tree portfast
service-policy input
...@lewis.org
To: Randy McAnally r...@fast-serv.com
Cc: cisco-nsp cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Sent: Mon, 22 Feb 2010 14:39:05 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] what is it with 3550s?
On Mon, 22 Feb 2010, Randy McAnally wrote:
interface GigabitEthernet1/0/8
switchport access vlan 24
spanning-tree
On Mon, 22 Feb 2010, Randy McAnally wrote:
Correct..input only:
Switch(config-if)#service-policy output 10Mbps
police command is not supported for this interface
Configuration failed!
Warning: Assigning a policy map to the output side of an interface not supported
And that's the issue.
On 2/22/10 12:07 PM, Jon Lewis wrote:
On Mon, 22 Feb 2010, Randy McAnally wrote:
Correct..input only:
Switch(config-if)#service-policy output 10Mbps
police command is not supported for this interface
Configuration failed!
Warning: Assigning a policy map to the output side of an interface
On Mon, 22 Feb 2010, Seth Mattinen wrote:
Exactly. Correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I know the only way to
get that functionality back is a 6500, and that's a *huge* step.
Not just any 6500. If you want similar (to the 3550) ability to police at
arbitrary rates via service-policy in
On 2/22/2010 3:45 PM, Seth Mattinen wrote:
Exactly. Correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I know the only way to
get that functionality back is a 6500, and that's a *huge* step.
Umm, 4500 Sup-IV appears to support input/output (or at least doesn't
bitch at the configs in a quick test...).
On 23/02/2010, at 7:41 AM, Jeff Kell wrote:
On 2/22/2010 3:45 PM, Seth Mattinen wrote:
Exactly. Correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I know the only way to
get that functionality back is a 6500, and that's a *huge* step.
Umm, 4500 Sup-IV appears to support input/output (or at least
On 2/22/10 2:14 PM, Tom Lanyon wrote:
On 23/02/2010, at 7:41 AM, Jeff Kell wrote:
On 2/22/2010 3:45 PM, Seth Mattinen wrote:
Exactly. Correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I know the only way to
get that functionality back is a 6500, and that's a *huge* step.
Umm, 4500 Sup-IV appears to
We've got a boatload of 3550-EMI's (for colo/server aggregation duties) and
are
looking at replacing them in the next 12-24 months The C3750G-24/48-E series
seem to be a good upgrade path (all gig ports, layer3 routing, IPv6 support,
fairly easy to source on the used market) -- curious
We currently aren't doing any QoS, and a limited amount of policing. Besides
the C3750G, are there any other switches worth a look? We're a mixed
Juniper/Cisco shop, so I've been looking at the EX3200 line as well. We need
something that will do OSPF and limited BGP (just to announce
- Original Message -
From: TCIS List Acct lista...@tulsaconnect.com
To: sth...@nethelp.no
Cc: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net; jle...@lewis.org
Sent: Sunday, February 21, 2010 3:00 PM
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] what is it with 3550s?
We currently aren't doing any QoS, and a limited amount
@puck.nether.net; jle...@lewis.org
Sent: Sunday, February 21, 2010 3:00 PM
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] what is it with 3550s?
We currently aren't doing any QoS, and a limited amount of policing.
Besides the C3750G, are there any other switches worth a look? We're
a mixed Juniper/Cisco shop, so I've been
Varriale wrote:
- Original Message - From: TCIS List Acct
lista...@tulsaconnect.com
To: sth...@nethelp.no
Cc: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net; jle...@lewis.org
Sent: Sunday, February 21, 2010 3:00 PM
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] what is it with 3550s?
We currently aren't doing any QoS
On Sun, 21 Feb 2010 15:37:29 -0600, you wrote:
Also, we've been looking more towards the Cisco's because the Juniper EX
series
seem to require a feature license for even basic BGP on the 2200/3200
series.
Så does Cisco. BGP is in IP Services on the switches.
-A
Acct
Cc: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] what is it with 3550s?
On Sun, 21 Feb 2010 15:37:29 -0600, you wrote:
Also, we've been looking more towards the Cisco's because the Juniper EX
series
seem to require a feature license for even basic BGP on the 2200/3200
series.
Så does
On Sun, Feb 21, 2010 at 11:05:15PM +, John van Oppen wrote:
Do either the 3550s or 3750s do ipv6 BGP? My read of the specifications is
that they don't but a real world confirmation would be nice as we are trying to
figure out if we need to move in the direction of force10 (which clearly
, 2010 1:20 PM
To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] what is it with 3550s?
- Original Message -
From: TCIS List Acct lista...@tulsaconnect.com
To: sth...@nethelp.no
Cc: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net; jle...@lewis.org
Sent: Sunday, February 21, 2010 3:00 PM
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] what
...@comcast.net, cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Sent: Sun, 21 Feb 2010 17:19:01 -0800
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] what is it with 3550s?
I'm using EX3200's in this role (OSPF, BGP customer aggregation). I
do like how the EX4200's can do dual power and/or VC.
-b
-Original Message
They seem to be an incredibly popular device, especially for telcos as
CPE devices. Why? (I have no use for them, really, and they appear to be
EOL, I'm just really curious.)
___
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
On Wed, 3 Feb 2010, Jeff Bacon wrote:
They seem to be an incredibly popular device, especially for telcos as
CPE devices. Why? (I have no use for them, really, and they appear to be
EOL, I'm just really curious.)
They're one of cisco's earliest (first?) inexpensive fixed configuration
layer
-Original Message-
From: cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net [mailto:cisco-nsp-
boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Jeff Bacon
Sent: Wednesday, February 03, 2010 12:03 PM
To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: [c-nsp] what is it with 3550s?
They seem to be an incredibly popular
Jeff Bacon wrote:
They seem to be an incredibly popular device, especially for telcos as
CPE devices. Why? (I have no use for them, really, and they appear to be
EOL, I'm just really curious.)
___
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
-Original Message-
From: cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net
[mailto:cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Jeff Bacon
Sent: mercoledì 3 febbraio 2010 18.03
To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: [c-nsp] what is it with 3550s?
They seem to be an incredibly popular device
They seem to be an incredibly popular device, especially for telcos
as
CPE devices. Why? (I have no use for them, really, and they appear to
be
EOL, I'm just really curious.)
They can do full layer 3 routing, have a diverse selection of model
numbers, do decent QoS, and are cheap,
On 2/3/10 12:01 PM, Eric Van Tol wrote:
-Original Message-
From: cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net [mailto:cisco-nsp-
boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Jon Lewis
Sent: Wednesday, February 03, 2010 2:30 PM
To: Cory Ayers
Cc: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] what
On Wed, Feb 03, 2010 at 03:01:33PM -0500, Eric Van Tol wrote:
Are you sure about this? I thought that 12.2(44)SE2 has IPv6 support:
Switch1(config)#ipv6 ?
access-list Configure access lists
general-prefix Configure a general IPv6 prefix
hop-limitConfigure hop count
Date: Wed, 3 Feb 2010 15:01:33
To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.netcisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] what is it with 3550s?
-Original Message-
From: cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net [mailto:cisco-nsp-
boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Jon Lewis
Sent: Wednesday
-Original Message-
From: sth...@nethelp.no [mailto:sth...@nethelp.no]
Sent: Wednesday, February 03, 2010 3:19 PM
To: e...@edgeoc.net
Cc: Eric Van Tol; cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net; cisco-
n...@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] what is it with 3550s?
That is in SW only
On Wed, 3 Feb 2010, Eric Van Tol wrote:
Yes, the 3550 has no *hardware* support for IPv6 routing. End of story.
Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sth...@nethelp.no
Yes, this is true. But what was said was, You're not going to see IPv6
routing support on the 3550 AFAIK. I wouldn't turn it
Don't the 3550 have some pretty big TCAM and routed VLAN limitations compared
to their 3560/3750 counterparts?
--
Randy
-- Original Message ---
From: Jeff Kell jeff-k...@utc.edu
To: cisco-nsp cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Sent: Wed, 03 Feb 2010 16:33:43 -0500
Subject: Re: [c-nsp
A quick search through our inventory and I see current used market prices
are:
WS-C3550-12G $675/ea - $875/ea
WS-C3550-24PWR-SMI - $350/ea - $450/ea
WS-C3550-48-EMI $315/ea - $450/ea
WS-C3550-48-SMI $250/ea - $350/ea
~.~
Best regards,
Larry E. Stites
Acquisitions and Sales
Northern
47 matches
Mail list logo
