[c-nsp] Solid L2 switch - 2948G or 3548-XL-EN?

[Ian Dickinson]

2900XL and 3500XL are exactly equivalent in this regard (and most other ways
too other than GBIC slots) - as long as you have the EN models with 8Mb - I'd
advise putting any non-EN models with 4Mb in the trash.  Make sure you're on
12.0(5)WC17 and subject to the limitations (no rapid SPT, no extended vlan
IDs, 1Gbps simplex per port on 3508XL, etc etc) they've been a fine workhorse.

Ian

Skeeve Stevens wrote:
> The thing I like about the 3500XL over the 2900XL is that the 3500 can do
> dot1q and ISL and we used then quite a bit to bridge between old and new
> networks. As far as I could tell the 2900XL's could only do dot1q - well the
> models I had access to.
> 
> I am about to deploy some 3524XL-EN at the moment as they are still fine
> switches for some 100mb interconnects between datacentres.
> 
> 
> ...Skeeve
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cisco-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net
> [mailto:cisco-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Jeff Kell
> Sent: Wednesday, 20 June 2007 12:25 PM
> To: Steve Feldman
> Cc: cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
> Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Solid L2 switch - 2948G or 3548-XL-EN?
> 
> Steve Feldman wrote:
> 
>>No, the 3548XL is layer 2 only.  I think the layer 3 features started
>>showing up in the 3550 series switches.
>>  
> 
> 
> IIRC, the XLs are all L2 only.  The 29nnXLs were strictly 100Mbps while 
> the 35nnXLs had Gig (uplinks).
> 
> 
>>We still have many of the 3500XL-series switches in use, and we've been
>>very happy with them.
> 
> 
> We have some XLs of both flavors.  The only "really annoying" old ones 
> are the 4Mb 2900XLs - they can't trunk (other than uplinks).
> 
> Wasn't the 2948G the odd one that could do L3, but only the uplinks?  or 
> was that a 49xx?  Never had either one.
> 
> Jeff

-- 
Ian