[c-nsp] 6500 vs 7600

[Mohacsi Janos]

On Wed, 11 Aug 2004, Tim Stevenson wrote:

> Here is the scoop:
>
> - *all* 6500 & 7600 chassis are NEBS Level-3 compliant
> - most of the chassis have side-side airflow and horizontal card orientation
> - a couple of the chassis have front-back airflow & vertical card orientation
> - the 7600 chassis are more geared for SP environments with respect to 
> chassis form factor etc
> - the backplane and fabric architecture, supervisor engines, and IOS images 
> are the same on both
> - the linecards are interchangeable between platforms, given correct IOS 
> software support (see the RNs)
> - Only the 6500 will get continuing CatOS software support (a few old 7600 
> OSMs are supported with CatOS, but none added recently & none being added 
> going forward; new 7600 chassis may or may not be added in CatOS)
>
> In terms of marketing, what is the point?
>
> - 6500 is designed for the enterprise market (an L3 switch), and would be 
> positioned with either IOS or CatOS, any of the sups, and primarily with 
> ethernet line cards along with service modules and enterprise-focused 
> features
>
> - 7600 is designed for the SP market (a router ;), and would be positioned 
> only with IOS, only with sup2/sup720, with heavy emphasis on the FlexWAN/OSMs 
> (WAN connectivity) and related SP-focused features. Also, the name implies a 
> "follow on"/"successor" to the 7500 product line.

I think this marketing terms soon become obsolote. The ubiquity of 
Ethernet will remove this kind of distincition. One our public procurement 
process the Telecommunication provider prefered providing 10GE instead of 
STM-64. You might prefer using 2xGE over STM-16 on dark fiber. You can use 
OSM cards in 6500. The current FlexWAN has serious limitatios, therefore 
we are not using them....
Best Regards,A

Janos Mohacsi
Network Engineer, Research Associate
NIIF/HUNGARNET, HUNGARY
Key 00F9AF98: 8645 1312 D249 471B DBAE  21A2 9F52 0D1F 00F9 AF98

>
> The marketing teams for each product generally deal with totally different 
> customers with totally different product/feature requirements, so it does 
> make  sense to have these marketed as separate products since the different 
> marketing teams drive the product for their specific market segment. And, it 
> does make some sense to leverage the core architecture, which has been proven 
> to be of some quality, for both platforms.
>
> My 2 cents.
> Tim
>
> At 07:11 AM 8/11/2004, cisco-nsp-request at puck.nether.net announced:
>> Message: 11
>> Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2004 16:06:26 +0200
>> From: "Tantsura, Jeff" <jeff.tantsura at capgemini.com>
>> Subject: RE: [c-nsp] 6500 vs 7600
>> To: <rwcrowe at comcast.net>, <cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net>
>> Message-ID:
>>      <0D90E2E8E7D54146B0BC76FE74F015C32CD592 at NL-EXVS-01C.bnl.capgemin
>>      i.com>
>> Content-Type: text/plain;     charset=us-ascii
>> 
>> 
>> There is no difference. Just marketing.
>> 
>> 
>> With kind regards/ met vriendelijke groeten,
>> -----------------------------------------------
>> Jeff Tantsura
>> CCIE #11416
>> Senior Consultant
>> Capgemini Nederland BV
>> Tel: +31(0)30 689 2866
>> Mob:+31(0)6 4588 6858
>> Fax: +31(0)30 689 6565
>> -----------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> Tim Stevenson, tstevens at cisco.com
> Routing & Switching CCIE #5561
> Technical Marketing Engineer, Catalyst 6500
> Cisco Systems, http://www.cisco.com
> IP Phone: 408-526-6759
> ********************************************************
> The contents of this message may be *Cisco Confidential*
> and are intended for the specified recipients only.
>
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
> archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
>