[c-nsp] Cisco 3750G vs. HP Procurve

[Tim Durack]

That's only true of older ProCurve's with single bridge tables, such
as the 4000m. Anything newer such as the 5300 doesn't have this
restriction.

The XRMON/sFlow stuff is nice, gives great network visibility if you
have the tools.

We've found hp make great switches for the money. Lifetime support
without ongoing maintenance contracts is quite persuasive.

I am cautious of HPs L3 implementation. You'll likely be safe if you
stick to L2 Access/Aggregation, and use Cisco for any L3 core stuff.

Tim:>

On 3/25/06, ilia p <ipetkov at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 3/24/06, matthew zeier <mrz at velvet.org> wrote:
> >
> > It's been suggested that the Procurve may be a good, cheaper,
> > alternative to the 3750G however, I don't have any experience with HP
> > switches.l
> >
> avoid using procurve switches in dual homed environment where multiple
> vlans are configured. Look at their manual , "VLAN Restrictions"
> section: "... Duplicate MAC addresses on different VLANs are not
> supported and can cause VLAN operating problems...." .
> Otherwise the switch is not bad (for the price), it is just not your
> datacenter access switch.
>
>
>
> > The 3750Gs are acting as access switches and only doing L2 but I wanted
> > to take advantage of the stacking and cross-stack port-channeling.  Each
> > stack of two members will uplink to two 6509s on a 4x1Gbps port-channel
> > (two from each member then).
> >
> > Anyone have any experience or comments?  Thanks.
> >
> > I's also being suggested that I look at Juniper...
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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/
> >
>
>
> --
> ilia
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/
>