Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Cisco > Choice of Cisco 3550 or Nortel 470 switches

Reply
Thread Tools

Choice of Cisco 3550 or Nortel 470 switches

 
 
Hansang Bae
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-31-2003
In article <264ob.3850$(E-Mail Removed) m>,
http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed) says...
> 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.


This isn't directed at you Phillip! It's just general bitchin.

I wish Cisco's IOS team would concentrate on fixing some notorious IPSec
issues (among other) before moving on to making IPv6 a standard fair on
IOSes. While we may have bigger than most networks, the constant issues
faced with IPSec causing boxes to keel over is getting annoying at best.

The IOS quality seems to have gone out the window lately.


--

hsb

"Somehow I imagined this experience would be more rewarding" Calvin
*************** USE ROT13 TO SEE MY EMAIL ADDRESS ****************
************************************************** ******************
Due to the volume of email that I receive, I may not not be able to
reply to emails sent to my account. Please post a followup instead.
************************************************** ******************
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
latenight
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-01-2003
BayStack switches can have one port in more than one VLAN, this is very
useful if you want i.e. some server(s) in all VLANs.


"Jim" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) 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?



 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Erik
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-01-2003
Guys, it's this way:
Stacking connectors are built in (2 of them for redundant stacking). One
stack cable is supplied with each unit you buy; that also means you can
stack 2 or 3 whithout buying anything "extra" at all. If you make a bigger
stack you can buy 1 (one only) longer stack return cable to connect the top
and bottom unit. The gig GBICs are not needed for the stacking; you allways
keep your 2 Gig uplinks per unit.

"Jim" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) m...
> http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed)-cnrc.gc.ca (Walter Roberson) wrote in message

news:<bnp029$1kn$(E-Mail Removed)>...
> > In article <f9Tnb.1630$(E-Mail Removed)-ops.be>,
> > Erik <(E-Mail Removed)> 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?
>



 
Reply With Quote
 
Steven Healey
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-01-2003
Another consideration is availability of reasonably priced, local
design/operations assistance. I inherited some Nortel switches and
routers at a mid-sized company in the US; even in medium-sized cities it
is hard to find people who can help with configuration. As a result I
have had to spend a lot of long evenings with the (not always helpful)
Nortel documentation trying to teach it to myself. Whereas you can find
people standing on roadway medians holding "will configure Cisco kit for
food" signs just about anywhere these days.

sPh

 
Reply With Quote
 
Walter Roberson
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-01-2003
In article <FHQob.202293$(E-Mail Removed)>,
Steven Healey <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
:Another consideration is availability of reasonably priced, local
:design/operations assistance. I inherited some Nortel switches and
:routers at a mid-sized company in the US; even in medium-sized cities it
:is hard to find people who can help with configuration. As a result I
:have had to spend a lot of long evenings with the (not always helpful)
:Nortel documentation trying to teach it to myself.

The BayStack 450 documentation isn't bad, so I presume that the
BayStack 470 documentation (similar interface) is not bad either.

The Nortel routers are a different issue.

:Whereas you can find
eople standing on roadway medians holding "will configure Cisco kit for
:food" signs just about anywhere these days.

Some people get food out of it?? You mean that it's not just one
of those Civic Duties like cleaning up the back alley before someone
hurts themselves?
--
Tenser, said the Tensor.
Tenser, said the Tensor.
Tension, apprehension,
And dissension have begun. -- Alfred Bester (tDM)
 
Reply With Quote
 
Walter Roberson
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-01-2003
In article <a7Mob.5069$(E-Mail Removed)>,
latenight <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
:BayStack switches can have one port in more than one VLAN, this is very
:useful if you want i.e. some server(s) in all VLANs.

True for port-based VLANs, not true for protocol-based VLANs.

As I recall, older versions of the Baystack software only allowed
ports to be in one port-based VLAN, but the Baystack 470 being
discussed here should have new enough software to allow this
feature.
--
Cottleston, Cottleston, Cottleston pie.
A bird can't whistle and neither can I. -- Pooh
 
Reply With Quote
 
latenight
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-01-2003
BayStack sw supports this feature for a very long time.


"Walter Roberson" <(E-Mail Removed)-cnrc.gc.ca> wrote in message
news:bo0pa8$jcu$(E-Mail Removed)...
> In article <a7Mob.5069$(E-Mail Removed)>,
> latenight <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> :BayStack switches can have one port in more than one VLAN, this is very
> :useful if you want i.e. some server(s) in all VLANs.
>
> True for port-based VLANs, not true for protocol-based VLANs.
>
> As I recall, older versions of the Baystack software only allowed
> ports to be in one port-based VLAN, but the Baystack 470 being
> discussed here should have new enough software to allow this
> feature.
> --
> Cottleston, Cottleston, Cottleston pie.
> A bird can't whistle and neither can I. -- Pooh



 
Reply With Quote
 
Charles R. Anderson
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-02-2003
Walter Roberson <(E-Mail Removed)-cnrc.gc.ca> wrote:
> The 470 can do rate-limiting, but I don't think it can do it on
> Layer 4 information.


I believe you can do rate-limiting on Layer 4 info. The QoS
classification filters certainly support Layer 4, and you can apply a
policer to that.

> The 470 can do Split Multi-Link Trunking (SMLT) to Passport 8600's;
> if I understand correctly, that's a proprietary feature. Both the


Split MLT is indeed proprietary, however, the edge switches only need
standard MLT/802.3ad Link Aggregation, and should work with any
vendor's switch that does standard Link Aggregation. The idea is to
dual-home the edge switch (appears as an MLT to the edge switch) to
two core Passport 8600 switches which appear logically as a single
switch, providing full-box redundancy with sub-second failover for
bridged and routed traffic.

> 470 and Cisco 3550 do Distributed Multi-Link Trunking (DMLT), but
> that's the Nortel name for the feature; Cisco calls it something
> different.


DMLT is simply MLT across different units of a single stack, providing
uplink (or server trunk) redundancy to a stack. It is standard Link
Aggregation, and should work as such with any vendor using standard
Link Aggregation/802.3ad.

Note that Nortel MLT doesn't implement the LACP part of 802.3ad yet
(i.e. it is "statically compliant"). The only vendor i am aware of
that does LACP is Riverstone.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
We are buying: Cisco ADC Nortel Nokia Nortel Fujitsu Lucent Keane1 Cisco 0 11-10-2009 09:05 PM
Cisco 3750 to Nortel Baystack 470-48T xianli@xianli.net Cisco 5 03-10-2008 08:56 AM
problems connecting a Cisco 3550 switch to a Nortel BPS2000 bas.bruggeman@gmail.com Cisco 2 11-07-2006 03:53 AM
Re: Connecting 2 Cisco 3550 switches together Alan Strassberg Cisco 0 07-23-2003 09:28 PM
Re: Connecting 2 Cisco 3550 switches together NNTP Reader Cisco 0 07-23-2003 04:46 PM



Advertisments