[nsp] Catalyst 4506 comparison with 6506

[Z]

On Tue, Nov 05, 2002 at 08:09:08AM -0700, Charlie Winckless wrote:
> The 4506 will do L3, with the S3 -- and with the
> 4500 series, they now have 1:1 redundancy on
> the power supplies in most situations (in heavy
> IP telephony use, you may need more than the
> 2800W power supply.
> 
> I'd also look at the 4507R; I've been favourably
> impressed with them, since they can do redundany
> SUps.
> 
> I, personally, despise L3 on anything less than
> an S3, and see no reason to get a 4006 over a 
> 4506 at this stage either.
> 
> The big caveat here is that the 'feature' licence
> to do any reasonable routing protocol is another
> $10k (since it's just to match Extreme, etc, in
> this market space), and I don't /think/ they do
> BGP


  Interesting stuff.

  Am I reading this correctly.. a 4507R with Sup IV can do 64GBps,
while a 6506 with Sup 2 + MSFC2 does half the throughput of 32GBps?
I know with the switch fabric module the 6506 can do 256GBps and it
looks like the 4507R is stuck with whatever the Sup IV can do out of
the box ( no switch fabric modules or anything of that nature ).  At
a glance though, the Sup IV is better than the Sup 2.

  Also, it looks like the 4507R can only have 128MB of memory.  That
doesn't seem to bode well if you're doing a lot of routing on the
thing, but I could just be interpreting what I'm reading on Cisco's
god awful new site wrong.

  Possibly another drawback of the 4507R is that it doesn't appear
to be able to do HSRP.  


.z