Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Cisco > newbie question

Reply
Thread Tools

newbie question

 
 
ascot
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-31-2003
Why should I pay several $$$$ for Cisco 2621 Dual 10/100 Ethernet Router ?
I want to route between two Ethernet LANs and this is the bit of kit that I
have been told I need.
But there seems to be much cheaper routers from Netgear, Linksys etc. that
do the same thing. How are they different ?


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Chris
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-31-2003

"ascot" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:3fa2e0ec$0$12701$(E-Mail Removed).. .
> Why should I pay several $$$$ for Cisco 2621 Dual 10/100 Ethernet Router ?
> I want to route between two Ethernet LANs and this is the bit of kit that

I
> have been told I need.
> But there seems to be much cheaper routers from Netgear, Linksys etc. that
> do the same thing. How are they different ?
>
>


You don't need a 2621 for something like routing between wto LANs. That's
just overkill. Stick a Win2K or Linux box in there with two network cards.
Voila ... a router!

Chris.



 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Andre Beck
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-01-2003
"Chris" <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
> "ascot" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:3fa2e0ec$0$12701$(E-Mail Removed).. .
> > Why should I pay several $$$$ for Cisco 2621 Dual 10/100 Ethernet Router ?
> > I want to route between two Ethernet LANs and this is the bit of kit that

> I
> > have been told I need.
> > But there seems to be much cheaper routers from Netgear, Linksys etc. that
> > do the same thing. How are they different ?


Well, they cannot be configured the IOS way and don't have the features
an IOS router has. If it takes a consultant one week to read and learn
everything about an odd brand you are using, it will likely cost you
$$$$ to repay their time. If it is IOS, they already know. You might
of course try to find one that is firm with your brand.

> You don't need a 2621 for something like routing between wto LANs. That's
> just overkill.


It's rather the wrong hammer. The 26xx is more of a WAN router to me,
I don't see why one would use *that* box as a LAN router. It has a
bunch of pretty cool things you can do with it, but just routing 100Base
is not really their playground. The 2621 will not even keep up with the
worst case load (full rate 64Byte Frames @ 200kpps, and that's not even
the duplex case).

> Stick a Win2K or Linux box in there with two network cards.
> Voila ... a router!


At least a decent forwarder

When it comes to routers, I have get some strong hits over the head when
I tried Zebra with MD5 authenticated OSPF. Now I leave the *routing* to
the Ciscos. The Linux boxes do well with statics and packet bouncing is
rock solid.

Again, if there are some $$$$ to spend, why not spend them on a 3750. This
gives both, a router that outperforms any PC solution by orders of magni-
tude *and* has a switch "included".

--
The _S_anta _C_laus _O_peration
or "how to turn a complete illusion into a neverending money source"

-> Andre "ABPSoft" Beck +++ ABP-RIPE +++ Dresden, Germany, Spacetime <-
 
Reply With Quote
 
ascot
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-01-2003
Thanks Andre - I guess I'm getting the idea that I don't need anything as
expensive as a 26xx.
I still a bit confused, particularly as you mention a Cisco router having a
"switch" included.
All I want to do is join LAN A and LAN B which are on different subnets.
LAN B is already connected to LAN C so I want to route any traffic that LAN
A has for LAN C via LAN B. does a basic Netgear router allow me to do that
routing or is a "switch" ok.

"Andre Beck" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> "Chris" <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
> > "ascot" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> > news:3fa2e0ec$0$12701$(E-Mail Removed).. .
> > > Why should I pay several $$$$ for Cisco 2621 Dual 10/100 Ethernet

Router ?
> > > I want to route between two Ethernet LANs and this is the bit of kit

that
> > I
> > > have been told I need.
> > > But there seems to be much cheaper routers from Netgear, Linksys etc.

that
> > > do the same thing. How are they different ?

>
> Well, they cannot be configured the IOS way and don't have the features
> an IOS router has. If it takes a consultant one week to read and learn
> everything about an odd brand you are using, it will likely cost you
> $$$$ to repay their time. If it is IOS, they already know. You might
> of course try to find one that is firm with your brand.
>
> > You don't need a 2621 for something like routing between wto LANs.

That's
> > just overkill.

>
> It's rather the wrong hammer. The 26xx is more of a WAN router to me,
> I don't see why one would use *that* box as a LAN router. It has a
> bunch of pretty cool things you can do with it, but just routing 100Base
> is not really their playground. The 2621 will not even keep up with the
> worst case load (full rate 64Byte Frames @ 200kpps, and that's not even
> the duplex case).
>
> > Stick a Win2K or Linux box in there with two network cards.
> > Voila ... a router!

>
> At least a decent forwarder
>
> When it comes to routers, I have get some strong hits over the head when
> I tried Zebra with MD5 authenticated OSPF. Now I leave the *routing* to
> the Ciscos. The Linux boxes do well with statics and packet bouncing is
> rock solid.
>
> Again, if there are some $$$$ to spend, why not spend them on a 3750. This
> gives both, a router that outperforms any PC solution by orders of magni-
> tude *and* has a switch "included".
>
> --
> The _S_anta _C_laus _O_peration
> or "how to turn a complete illusion into a neverending money source"
>
> -> Andre "ABPSoft" Beck +++ ABP-RIPE +++ Dresden, Germany, Spacetime <-



 
Reply With Quote
 
Fred Newton
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-01-2003
You could always use a Cisco 1710 Dual FE Router. Much cheaper than the 2621
and still has the IOS functionality.


"ascot" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:3fa41eb9$0$12684$(E-Mail Removed).. .
> Thanks Andre - I guess I'm getting the idea that I don't need anything as
> expensive as a 26xx.
> I still a bit confused, particularly as you mention a Cisco router having

a
> "switch" included.
> All I want to do is join LAN A and LAN B which are on different subnets.
> LAN B is already connected to LAN C so I want to route any traffic that

LAN
> A has for LAN C via LAN B. does a basic Netgear router allow me to do

that
> routing or is a "switch" ok.
>
> "Andre Beck" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> > "Chris" <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
> > > "ascot" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> > > news:3fa2e0ec$0$12701$(E-Mail Removed).. .
> > > > Why should I pay several $$$$ for Cisco 2621 Dual 10/100 Ethernet

> Router ?
> > > > I want to route between two Ethernet LANs and this is the bit of kit

> that
> > > I
> > > > have been told I need.
> > > > But there seems to be much cheaper routers from Netgear, Linksys

etc.
> that
> > > > do the same thing. How are they different ?

> >
> > Well, they cannot be configured the IOS way and don't have the features
> > an IOS router has. If it takes a consultant one week to read and learn
> > everything about an odd brand you are using, it will likely cost you
> > $$$$ to repay their time. If it is IOS, they already know. You might
> > of course try to find one that is firm with your brand.
> >
> > > You don't need a 2621 for something like routing between wto LANs.

> That's
> > > just overkill.

> >
> > It's rather the wrong hammer. The 26xx is more of a WAN router to me,
> > I don't see why one would use *that* box as a LAN router. It has a
> > bunch of pretty cool things you can do with it, but just routing 100Base
> > is not really their playground. The 2621 will not even keep up with the
> > worst case load (full rate 64Byte Frames @ 200kpps, and that's not even
> > the duplex case).
> >
> > > Stick a Win2K or Linux box in there with two network cards.
> > > Voila ... a router!

> >
> > At least a decent forwarder
> >
> > When it comes to routers, I have get some strong hits over the head when
> > I tried Zebra with MD5 authenticated OSPF. Now I leave the *routing* to
> > the Ciscos. The Linux boxes do well with statics and packet bouncing is
> > rock solid.
> >
> > Again, if there are some $$$$ to spend, why not spend them on a 3750.

This
> > gives both, a router that outperforms any PC solution by orders of

magni-
> > tude *and* has a switch "included".
> >
> > --
> > The _S_anta _C_laus _O_peration
> > or "how to turn a complete illusion into a neverending money source"
> >
> > -> Andre "ABPSoft" Beck +++ ABP-RIPE +++ Dresden, Germany, Spacetime <-

>
>



 
Reply With Quote
 
Andre Beck
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-02-2003

(quoting corrected)

"ascot" <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
> "Andre Beck" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> >
> > Again, if there are some $$$$ to spend, why not spend them on a 3750. This
> > gives both, a router that outperforms any PC solution by orders of magni-
> > tude *and* has a switch "included".

>
> Thanks Andre - I guess I'm getting the idea that I don't need anything as
> expensive as a 26xx.


Well, don't expect an L3 switch that can keep up with the load *and*
grow some more years with your needs to be less expensive than a 26xx

> I still a bit confused, particularly as you mention a Cisco router having a
> "switch" included.


I wasn't actually speaking of a product of Cisco's "Router" product line,
but rather of their "Switch" product line: The Catalyst 3750 series.
This is an L3 switch line that includes a cost effective 24 Ports 10/100
Model with two SFP, and beeing an L3 switch, it indeed *is* a router.

> All I want to do is join LAN A and LAN B which are on different subnets.


That was clear

> LAN B is already connected to LAN C so I want to route any traffic that LAN
> A has for LAN C via LAN B.


The cool thing about an L3 switch like the abovementioned 3750 is that
you get two things: A nice, high performance switch that you can use
to aggregate existing core equipment to (switches/hubs of LAN A and
LAN B, servers, dedicated workstations etc), possibly increasing your
throughput significantly, *and* a decent router between the connected
LANs. Again, one that outperforms any PC solution, to be silent of the
26xx series, when it comes to LAN-LAN-routing. What model makes sense
primarily depends on how your LANs look on L1 and L2 today. There are
also older Cisco L3 switches that might do it as well, like the 3550
series. I'm just focusing on the 3750 as this constitutes a clear
optimum in the "bang for the buck" business, at least currently. It
is IPv6 ready, it can aggregate lots of 1000Base, it has true stacking.

The gain of using a 26xx is smaller, except when you are planning to
do some WAN business shortly, or maybe voice.

> does a basic Netgear router allow me to do that routing


I don't know about Netgear. I really can't help here. If it is branded
as a router and has more than one 100Base interfaces, it should be able
to route two ethernet based LANs. But I don't know anything about their
features (existing and, especially, missing), their reliability and their
expected throughput.

> or is a "switch" ok.


If it has "L3 switching" (aka Routing), then probably yes - and it is
somewhat likely to win by performance. If you are looking for other
vendors anyway, HP has some neat switches that include limited L3 in
that they can forward, but are limited to max. 16 static routes. Their
2650 comes to mind.

--
The _S_anta _C_laus _O_peration
or "how to turn a complete illusion into a neverending money source"

-> Andre "ABPSoft" Beck +++ ABP-RIPE +++ Dresden, Germany, Spacetime <-
 
Reply With Quote
 
ascot
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-02-2003
Thanks very much for your help.
"Andre Beck" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>
> (quoting corrected)
>
> "ascot" <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
> > "Andre Beck" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message

news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> > >
> > > Again, if there are some $$$$ to spend, why not spend them on a 3750.

This
> > > gives both, a router that outperforms any PC solution by orders of

magni-
> > > tude *and* has a switch "included".

> >
> > Thanks Andre - I guess I'm getting the idea that I don't need anything

as
> > expensive as a 26xx.

>
> Well, don't expect an L3 switch that can keep up with the load *and*
> grow some more years with your needs to be less expensive than a 26xx
>
> > I still a bit confused, particularly as you mention a Cisco router

having a
> > "switch" included.

>
> I wasn't actually speaking of a product of Cisco's "Router" product line,
> but rather of their "Switch" product line: The Catalyst 3750 series.
> This is an L3 switch line that includes a cost effective 24 Ports 10/100
> Model with two SFP, and beeing an L3 switch, it indeed *is* a router.
>
> > All I want to do is join LAN A and LAN B which are on different subnets.

>
> That was clear
>
> > LAN B is already connected to LAN C so I want to route any traffic that

LAN
> > A has for LAN C via LAN B.

>
> The cool thing about an L3 switch like the abovementioned 3750 is that
> you get two things: A nice, high performance switch that you can use
> to aggregate existing core equipment to (switches/hubs of LAN A and
> LAN B, servers, dedicated workstations etc), possibly increasing your
> throughput significantly, *and* a decent router between the connected
> LANs. Again, one that outperforms any PC solution, to be silent of the
> 26xx series, when it comes to LAN-LAN-routing. What model makes sense
> primarily depends on how your LANs look on L1 and L2 today. There are
> also older Cisco L3 switches that might do it as well, like the 3550
> series. I'm just focusing on the 3750 as this constitutes a clear
> optimum in the "bang for the buck" business, at least currently. It
> is IPv6 ready, it can aggregate lots of 1000Base, it has true stacking.
>
> The gain of using a 26xx is smaller, except when you are planning to
> do some WAN business shortly, or maybe voice.
>
> > does a basic Netgear router allow me to do that routing

>
> I don't know about Netgear. I really can't help here. If it is branded
> as a router and has more than one 100Base interfaces, it should be able
> to route two ethernet based LANs. But I don't know anything about their
> features (existing and, especially, missing), their reliability and their
> expected throughput.
>
> > or is a "switch" ok.

>
> If it has "L3 switching" (aka Routing), then probably yes - and it is
> somewhat likely to win by performance. If you are looking for other
> vendors anyway, HP has some neat switches that include limited L3 in
> that they can forward, but are limited to max. 16 static routes. Their
> 2650 comes to mind.
>
> --
> The _S_anta _C_laus _O_peration
> or "how to turn a complete illusion into a neverending money source"
>
> -> Andre "ABPSoft" Beck +++ ABP-RIPE +++ Dresden, Germany, Spacetime <-



 
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
VONAGE Newbie w/newbie question New_kid@nowhere.new VOIP 0 08-11-2007 01:40 PM
another newbie question from another newbie.... Lee UK VOIP 4 05-17-2005 04:10 PM
newbie: cisco vlan newbie question No Spam Cisco 3 06-07-2004 10:02 AM
dumb newbie question (or newbie dumb question) Jerry C. Perl Misc 8 11-23-2003 04:11 AM
Newbie! I'm a newbie! What's wrong with this program? Id0x Python 4 07-20-2003 11:40 PM



Advertisments