newbie question

Discussion in 'Cisco' started by ascot, Oct 31, 2003.

  1. ascot

    ascot Guest

    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 ?
    ascot, Oct 31, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. ascot

    Chris Guest

    "ascot" <> wrote in message
    news:3fa2e0ec$0$12701$...
    > 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.
    Chris, Oct 31, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. ascot

    Andre Beck Guest

    "Chris" <> writes:
    > "ascot" <> wrote in message
    > news:3fa2e0ec$0$12701$...
    > > 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 <-
    Andre Beck, Nov 1, 2003
    #3
  4. ascot

    ascot Guest

    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" <> wrote in message news:...
    > "Chris" <> writes:
    > > "ascot" <> wrote in message
    > > news:3fa2e0ec$0$12701$...
    > > > 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 <-
    ascot, Nov 1, 2003
    #4
  5. ascot

    Fred Newton Guest

    You could always use a Cisco 1710 Dual FE Router. Much cheaper than the 2621
    and still has the IOS functionality.


    "ascot" <> wrote in message
    news:3fa41eb9$0$12684$...
    > 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" <> wrote in message news:...
    > > "Chris" <> writes:
    > > > "ascot" <> wrote in message
    > > > news:3fa2e0ec$0$12701$...
    > > > > 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 <-

    >
    >
    Fred Newton, Nov 1, 2003
    #5
  6. ascot

    Andre Beck Guest

    (quoting corrected)

    "ascot" <> writes:
    > "Andre Beck" <> wrote in message news:...
    > >
    > > 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 <-
    Andre Beck, Nov 2, 2003
    #6
  7. ascot

    ascot Guest

    Thanks very much for your help.
    "Andre Beck" <> wrote in message news:...
    >
    > (quoting corrected)
    >
    > "ascot" <> writes:
    > > "Andre Beck" <> wrote in message

    news:...
    > > >
    > > > 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 <-
    ascot, Nov 2, 2003
    #7
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. No Spam
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    3,971
    No Spam
    Jun 7, 2004
  2. Jørgen Gilberg
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    1,027
  3. SPD
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    1,145
    Jørgen Gilberg
    Aug 13, 2003
  4. Lee
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    2,059
  5. Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,403
Loading...

Share This Page