[c-nsp] Assigning VLANs on a per-subnet basis

[Frank Bulk]

Why did you swap out the 3750's?  There is a service provider version of the
3750 in the ME-C3750-24TE-M.  It seems to have the DC power and the SFP
ports we want, but we're still not sure about the horse-power.  

The 4948-S is quite a bit more money but has 10/100/1000 copper ports that
the 3750 doesn't have.  We just would never need 48 copper points in the hut
where it will be placed.

Frank

-----Original Message-----
From: cisco-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net
[mailto:cisco-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Brian Johnson
Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 8:43 AM
To: cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Assigning VLANs on a per-subnet basis

 

> 
> We basically found out that a Fujitsu FlashWave 4500 shelf 2 
> cannot do the
> same thing the ONS15454 can in regards to routing.  It would 
> be possible to
> put everyone on the same VLAN, but then the routers would:
> A) share the same broadcast traffic

YUCK!

> B) it wouldn't be possible to rate-limit on a per-company basis

YUCK!

> C) a bad network event, such as a worm, could starve the 
> other companies

DOUBLE YUCK!

> 
> We're leaning toward a 3750 because there are models with 4 
> SFP's, while the
> 4948 only has up to 2, I believe.  There's also consideration 

The 4948s we use have 4 SFPs.

> for a Extreme
> switch.  Does anyone have an opinion on the 3750's horsepower 
> to route up to
> a 1 Gbps in what are likely mostly small-sized packets?  

I would suggest the 4948 instead. We switched out four 3750s for 4948s on
our Fiber-to-the-Home Ethernet system and they work well for us. YMMV. ;)

_______________________________________________
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/