[c-nsp] 6509 with ws-x6148 or ws-x6348?

[Geoffrey Pendery]

Either one should work for your purposes.  Assuming you're talking
WS-X6148-RJ45 and WS-X6348-RJ45, not RJ45V (for PoE) or anything like
that, then as you said the buffers and QoS capabilities are the same.

The uplink ports on the Sups can both be active.  As for how to use
them as uplinks, it depends on the routers you're uplinking to.  If
the routers support Etherchannel/LAGs, you could pair them up and have
a two-gig link to each router, otherwise you can just put four
equal-cost routes in the table and let CEF handle the load-sharing.


-Geoff


On Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 4:41 AM,  <wellknown at gmx.net> wrote:
> Hi List,
>
> we bought our first cisco for use at lan-party some days ago and now need 48 port fe modules.
>
> Situation:
>
> Cisco6509 with dual Sup2
>
> Use:
>
> directly connecting all PCs via 10/100 connections in seperated vlans and
> Upstream via OSPF and equal cost multipath default routes to two routers via gbit on supervisor.
>
>
> Can anyone explain the difference between the cards ws-x6148 and ws-x6348? Both are relatively cheap available on the bay. I read about some problems with the x-6348 on the list. Seems that they have same buffer sizes and I am not able to find a difference.
>
>
> Is the above mentioned a usable configuration for this application?
>
> Is it possible to use all 4 gig ports of the supervisors as equal cost uplinks in parallel or is the second supervisor engine only active as backup?
>
>
> Ok, hope for reply!
>
> Best regards & merry Christmas!
>
> -Tom
>
> --
> Sensationsangebot verlängert: GMX FreeDSL - Telefonanschluss + DSL
> für nur 16,37 Euro/mtl.!* http://dsl.gmx.de/?ac=OM.AD.PD003K1308T4569a
> _______________________________________________
> 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/
>