[nsp] Catalyst 4506 comparison with 6506

[Tim Stiles]

We're using them as strictly Layer 2 devices for user distribution (10/100) 
and some limited server distribution with the gigE 10/100/1000 
cards.  They've been great for these roles.  The only negative we ran 
across is no jumbo frame support, at least until sometime in 2003 w/ new 
sup engines, according to Cisco.  Also, they come with 2 power supplies but 
need a third for failover.

Tim



At 12:20 AM 11/5/2002 -0800, Z wrote:

>Hi again,
>
>    Does anyone have any practical experience with the Catalyst
>4506 switch?   I've had good experiences with the 6506, but
>I'm looking for an option 'B' that is lower-cost and I'm wondering
>what the practical trade-offs are.   I know that throughput and port
>density are significantly less in the 45xx series as well as the
>supervisor engine features ( no MSFC and PFC or dFC-enabled hardware
>AFAIK ).   Can you even do the layer-3 stuff on the 4506, or HSRP,
>EIGRP, OSPF, etc?
>
>    Thanks in advance.
>
>.z
>_______________________________________________
>cisco-nsp mailing list  real_name)s@puck.nether.net
>http://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
>archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/