WRT your suggestion, +1. At the moment we are rolling cisco switches (3500XL or 2950 if we need RSTP) with one or two RB450G depending on seperation of roles. (If multiple backhauls, site gets a router for handling MPLS)
We prefer the RB1100 because we don't need a inverter for the switch at DC powered sites. On Oct 29, 2010 7:05 PM, "Butch Evans" <[email protected]> wrote: On Fri, 2010-10-29 at 16:15 -0700, Mark Nash wrote: > Well.... That's not what I said. You took th... :-) I only did so because your quoted price was in the range of the x86 systems. I didn't intend to offend, just thought it was funny that the comparison was made. If it wasn't intentional and I read it wrong, then I apologize for jumping to the wrong conclusion. Fair enough? > What I said was that we need port density. That was no joke. I agree. I have mentioned to MT that they need to build a switch with more than 5 ports, too. Of course, the response was deadly silent. > Many many many many MANY times... I need ports ports ports ports but not the > horsepower of an ... My suggestion for this is to use whatever box you are gonna need and a low cost managed switch that you can vlan. You can buy Cisco switches off the secondary market for peanuts these days. That gives you the physical ports and you can back it with whatever horsepower you may want/need. If you want it all in one box, then you can build an rb800 with the expansion board for even more ports than you'd get in an rb1100 (and more power, too). -- ******************************************************************** * Butch Evans ...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WISPA Wireless List: [email protected] Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
