«

Thanks Eric. This solution would be ok if it wasn't for the fact that
the WAN ethernet is only 10mbit. I need to connect two 100mbit
networks and will probably saturate a 10mbit interface.

Looks like the 1712 is going to be the lowest (new) cost solution.

Thanks,
Marv

>Hi,
>
>Maybe a 831 would suffice. It's a router with two 10/100 ethernet
>"interfaces" of which one is a 4 port switch/hub.
>
>Erik
>
>"Marv" <> wrote in message
>news:.. .
>> Hello,
>>
>> I've been doing some research to find the lowest cost solutions for
>> routing two 100mbit networks together (internally). This company is
>> non profit so cost is always a concern, yet I prefer to stick with
>> Cisco equipment.
>>
>> The lowest I've found that accomplishes the above is the Cisco 1712,
>> which has a 10/100 WAN connection and 4 port 10/100 switch built-in.
>>
>> Does anybody know of anything lower in cost than this that they could
>> recommend?
>>
>> Thanks in advance.
>

Where the heck did you come up with that!? When a router is purchased along
with a software license (automatic these days in almost, if not all cases)
transfer of ownership of the router includes the transfer of the software
license that was originally purchased with the router. If the router was
purchased with IP only and sold with IP only, there is absolutely no
copyright infringment. However, if the person sold the router with
Enterprise IOS, then there is a problem. It also has nothing to do with how
many times the router was booted. Maybe you're thinking of Canadian laws,
but that's not how it works in the US.

> That -might- be fine for you in Germany (but I've seen some longish legal
> debates over exactly what Germany law says that tends to indicate
> otherwise); it certainly isn't fine for the original poster in the USA.
>
> In the USA, each time the user router was booted would count as
> "copying" IOS for the purposes of copyright law, and if one does
> not have a valid license, then after a low number of copies had been made,
> copyright law would deem the "copying" to be a criminal offence, for
> which one could be put in prison for 5 years and heavily fined
> ($US50000 as I recall -- $US500,000 for cases involving commercial
copying.)

Walter is absolutely correct about the software non-transferrability,
disregard my statement below, except for the booting part. Looks like this
has been around since about July 2003.

http://www.cisco.com/en/US/ordering/..._overview.html

Mike

"Mike Gallagher" <> wrote in message
news:b8edncB5T5WNPUKiRVn-...
> Where the heck did you come up with that!? When a router is purchased
along
> with a software license (automatic these days in almost, if not all cases)
> transfer of ownership of the router includes the transfer of the software
> license that was originally purchased with the router. If the router was
> purchased with IP only and sold with IP only, there is absolutely no
> copyright infringment. However, if the person sold the router with
> Enterprise IOS, then there is a problem. It also has nothing to do with
how
> many times the router was booted. Maybe you're thinking of Canadian laws,
> but that's not how it works in the US.
>
> > That -might- be fine for you in Germany (but I've seen some longish
legal
> > debates over exactly what Germany law says that tends to indicate
> > otherwise); it certainly isn't fine for the original poster in the USA.
> >
> > In the USA, each time the user router was booted would count as
> > "copying" IOS for the purposes of copyright law, and if one does
> > not have a valid license, then after a low number of copies had been
made,
> > copyright law would deem the "copying" to be a criminal offence, for
> > which one could be put in prison for 5 years and heavily fined
> > ($US50000 as I recall -- $US500,000 for cases involving commercial
> copying.)
>
>
>

In article <b8edncB5T5WNPUKiRVn->,
Mike Gallagher <> wrote:
:Where the heck did you come up with that!? When a router is purchased along
:with a software license (automatic these days in almost, if not all cases)
:transfer of ownership of the router includes the transfer of the software
:license that was originally purchased with the router.

No it doesn't, not if the software license says otherwise; if the software
license says otherwise, then it takes specific law to override the
terms of the contract. In Germany, there -are- some specific ownership
laws that override contracts, but even native German speakers disagree
over what those laws cover, so I can't tell what the exact situation is
there.

Cisco does specifically say that the software license is not transferable.
http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/cc/...on/ctoa_qa.htm

"It is important to understand that software licenses and service
agreements are not transferable."

http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/csc...swlicense.html

Like many high-tech companies that produce software, Cisco adopts
a policy of non-transferability of its software in order to protect
its intellectual property rights. What this means in practice is
that owners of Cisco products are only allowed to transfer, re-sell
or re-lease used Cisco hardware and not the embedded software that
runs on the hardware.

http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/csc.../swpolicy.html

Cisco's policy is that Software, whether Standalone or Embedded, is
not transferable, except where a listed exception below applies,
and except, of course, where Cisco's contract expressly allows it.
Any other transfers will require the payment of a new license fee
(see Global Price List).
--
Strange but true: there are entire WWW pages devoted to listing
programs designed to obfuscate HTML.

A 1700 is not going to push anywhere near 100Mb of traffic. The interface
speeds don't really have much to do with throughput rate on the lower end
routers. It's going to be processor speed.

Here is a link that states the 1751 only gets 4.3Mb throughput using 64byte
packets and fast switching.

http://www.cisco.com/en/US/partner/p....shtml#xtocid9

What you need to do is benchmark your current networks getting an idea of
how much traffic goes between them. Getting an approximation of this tells
you what type of equipment you are going to need.

If you are simply connecting two lan segments together and you want
performance, a layer 3 switch is going to be your best choice.

JC

--

"Marv" <> wrote in message
news...
> Thanks Eric. This solution would be ok if it wasn't for the fact that
> the WAN ethernet is only 10mbit. I need to connect two 100mbit
> networks and will probably saturate a 10mbit interface.
>
> Looks like the 1712 is going to be the lowest (new) cost solution.
>
> Thanks,
> Marv
>
> >Hi,
> >
> >Maybe a 831 would suffice. It's a router with two 10/100 ethernet
> >"interfaces" of which one is a 4 port switch/hub.
> >
> >Erik
> >
> >"Marv" <> wrote in message
> >news:.. .
> >> Hello,
> >>
> >> I've been doing some research to find the lowest cost solutions for
> >> routing two 100mbit networks together (internally). This company is
> >> non profit so cost is always a concern, yet I prefer to stick with
> >> Cisco equipment.
> >>
> >> The lowest I've found that accomplishes the above is the Cisco 1712,
> >> which has a 10/100 WAN connection and 4 port 10/100 switch built-in.
> >>
> >> Does anybody know of anything lower in cost than this that they could
> >> recommend?
> >>
> >> Thanks in advance.
> >
>

"Marv" <> wrote in message
news:...
> Hello,
>
> I've been doing some research to find the lowest cost solutions for
> routing two 100mbit networks together (internally). This company is
> non profit so cost is always a concern, yet I prefer to stick with
> Cisco equipment.
>
> The lowest I've found that accomplishes the above is the Cisco 1712,
> which has a 10/100 WAN connection and 4 port 10/100 switch built-in.
>
> Does anybody know of anything lower in cost than this that they could
> recommend?
>
> Thanks in advance.

Actually 80 bucks will get you a Cisco BEFSR41