«

I Have a client trying to decide between a Cisco 3550 48 port switch
and Nortels Baystack 470 480 port switch. Both provide two gigabit uplinks.
Given that the client uses a generic snmp based management/monitoring package
(ie not ciscoworks), what are the pros and cons of these two choices?

In article <> ,
Jim <> wrote:
:I Have a client trying to decide between a Cisco 3550 48 port switch
:and Nortels Baystack 470 480 port switch. Both provide two gigabit uplinks.
:Given that the client uses a generic snmp based management/monitoring package
ie not ciscoworks), what are the pros and cons of these two choices?

The 3550 is a "multilayer switch" -- i.e., it is a router with
restricted functionality. With it, you can define VLANs, assign
IP addresses to them, put in ACLs (Access Control Lists) controlling the
flow between them. It can also do rate-limiting based upon layer 4
information.

http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/...0800913d7.html

The Baystack 470 are Layer 2 switches. The 48 port version has the
full QoS support that the BPS2000 had; the 24 port version is stackable
with Baystack 410 and Baystack 450, but does not have the full QoS.
Speaking of which, the Baystack 470's are stackable, but the Cisco 3550 is
not (you need a 3750 to be stackable.) The 470 can do rate-limiting,
but I don't think it can do it on Layer 4 information.

The 470 can do Split Multi-Link Trunking (SMLT) to Passport 8600's;
if I understand correctly, that's a proprietary feature. Both the
470 and Cisco 3550 do Distributed Multi-Link Trunking (DMLT), but
that's the Nortel name for the feature; Cisco calls it something
different.

http://a368.g.akamai.net/7/368/5107/...100-050203.pdf
--
And the wind keeps blowing the angel / Backwards into the future /
And this wind, this wind / Is called / Progress.
-- Laurie Anderson

In article <bnnhuu$c2g$>,
Walter Roberson <> wrote:
|In article <> ,
|Jim <> wrote:
|:I Have a client trying to decide between a Cisco 3550 48 port switch
|:and Nortels Baystack 470 480 port switch. Both provide two gigabit uplinks.
|:Given that the client uses a generic snmp based management/monitoring package
|ie not ciscoworks), what are the pros and cons of these two choices?

|http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/...0800913d7.html

|http://a368.g.akamai.net/7/368/5107/...100-050203.pdf

Also, check the performance figures carefully. The Baystack 470
is rated at 3.2 Mpps forwarding rate for 64 byte packets. The slowest of
the 3550 models (the 3550-24 series) is rated at 6.6 Mpps forwarding
for 64 byte packets. [Cross-comparing, the implication is that the switching
fabric of the 470 is about 4.3 Gbps.] You are looking at the 3550-48,
the forwarding rate for which is 10.1 Mpps, about 3 times faster
than the Baystack 470-48T.

Also, the 470 supports a maximum of 1522 bytes per packet (802.1Q Tagged); the
3550-24 and 3550-48 support up to 1546 bytes per packet for MPLS
switching.


Some of our people had a Baystack 470-48T arrive today, intended
as a pure layer 2 switch for their Beowulf cluster, and it'll probably
do fine at that task. Meanwhile, one of the 3550 series with several
gigabit ports is a serious contender as our next core LAN router.
We wouldn't have put an expensive 3550 in for them -- they don't
need it. We wouldn't put a 470 in for our LAN router, as it simply
isn't the right kind of device for that task.
--
Pity the poor electron, floating around minding its own business for
billions of years; and then suddenly Bam!! -- annihilated just so
you could read this posting.

You should certainly have a look at Java Device Manager which is a nice
configuration and monitoring tools for the Nortel switches. And it's free !
With Baystack you buy good stackability (resilient stacking, without using
your gigabit links) and full QoS. And while some people will focus on the
number of pps, you will not need wire rate on all ports at the same time in
an edge switch (get real !!). And even a switch with 1000Mpps will be
limited to sending 2 gbps over the uplinks.
Viking.

"Jim" <> wrote in message
news: m...
> I Have a client trying to decide between a Cisco 3550 48 port switch
> and Nortels Baystack 470 480 port switch. Both provide two gigabit
uplinks.
> Given that the client uses a generic snmp based management/monitoring
package
> (ie not ciscoworks), what are the pros and cons of these two choices?
>

In article <f9Tnb.1630$>,
Erik <> wrote:
:With Baystack you buy good stackability (resilient stacking, without using
:your gigabit links)

I see the 470 finally got rid of the cascade modules; those weren't
cheap for the 450 series.
--
csh is bad drugs.

(Walter Roberson) wrote in message news:<bnp029$1kn$>...
> In article <f9Tnb.1630$>,
> Erik <> wrote:
> :With Baystack you buy good stackability (resilient stacking, without using
> :your gigabit links)
>
> I see the 470 finally got rid of the cascade modules; those weren't
> cheap for the 450 series.

Thanks Walter and Erik for the informative replies to date. Regarding the
stacking ability of the Baystack 470 - do they still require proprietry
cables? (last Baystack I used was a 102 hub) Or do they use something more
generic?

"Jim" <> wrote in message
news: m...
> I Have a client trying to decide between a Cisco 3550 48 port switch
> and Nortels Baystack 470 480 port switch.

If IPV6 is in their future, the 3750 hardware is IPV6 ready, and packed with
some really sexy custom silicon that does QoS and large frames. Extremely
cool.

But I don't know about the Bay/Nortel, sorry.

Proprietary, however one comes with each switch.

You also have to buy the MDA's for the cascade modules, depending on your
cabling type this could be expensive. Make sure you order the right type, they
have several types.

They are managable via TELNET, HTTP or Nortels Device Manager.


"Jim" <> wrote in message
news: m...
> (Walter Roberson) wrote in message
news:<bnp029$1kn$>...
> > In article <f9Tnb.1630$>,
> > Erik <> wrote:
> > :With Baystack you buy good stackability (resilient stacking, without using
> > :your gigabit links)
> >
> > I see the 470 finally got rid of the cascade modules; those weren't
> > cheap for the 450 series.
>
> Thanks Walter and Erik for the informative replies to date. Regarding the
> stacking ability of the Baystack 470 - do they still require proprietry
> cables? (last Baystack I used was a 102 hub) Or do they use something more
> generic?

In article <YW7ob.4325$>,
John Smith <> wrote:
[with regard to Baystack 470 cascade cables]

roprietary, however one comes with each switch.

:You also have to buy the MDA's for the cascade modules, depending on your
:cabling type this could be expensive. Make sure you order the right type, they
:have several types.

That doesn't sound at all right, John. The Baystack 470 uses the
same [proprietary] cascade cable as the 410/450, but the product
literature specifically says,

The BayStack 470-48T Switch has built-in stacking ports for
simpler, quicker, and more cost-effective stacking, as cascade
modules are not required.

If you examine the product literature, you will find that 'mda' is
not mentioned at all -- there is no MDA slot on the 470-48T, and
the list of parts that go with the 470-48T does not include any
MDA-type interface options. The 470-48T has two (regular-size)
GBIC slots instead. GBIC's are -supposed- to be relatively
standard... they aren't really, of course, but you can often find
a few different kinds that work in any particular equipment.
--
Those were borogoves and the momerathsoutgrabe completely mimsy.

Sorry, I you're right, it's GBIC not MDA.

They have single mode, multimode GBIC adapters.
I know we had a fun time getting the exact one for a 450 at one time.