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

Geoffrey Pendery geoff at pendery.net
Tue Dec 23 12:43:57 EST 2008

Just to clarify that, the 6148A is the newer/better version of the
6148, not just the GE version.  The term after the number tells the
WS-X6148A-GE-TX - new 10/100/1000
WS-X6148A-RJ-45 - new 10/100
WS-X6148-RJ45 - old 10/100

The 6148 vs 6348 vs 6548 vs 6748 distinction is more about the
forwarding technology (classic bus, CEF256, CEF720)
However, both 6148 and 6348 are classic bus with no fabric, and I'm
having trouble finding the distinction between them.

According to Cisco:
"Each WS-X6348 card is controlled by a single Application-Specific
Integrated Circuit (ASIC) that connects the module to both the 32 GB
data bus backplane of the switch and to a set of four other ASICs
which controls groups of 12 10/100 ports."

I can't find a similar document on the 6148, but I wouldn't expect it
to perform better (6148A however is much better but also newer and
thus probably more expensive "on the bay")

There's limitations on the ASICs, the backplane bus, and the
Supervisor, but I wouldn't expect them to be a problem for a
LAN-party.  Just as he mentioned, don't expect to drive a full 100
Mbps to each port all the time.


On Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 10:45 AM, Pete Templin <petelists at templin.org> wrote:
> wellknown at gmx.net wrote:
>> 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.
> I have some ws-x6248 (48 port 10/100 copper FE), some ws-x6348 (48 port
> 10/100 copper FE), and some ws-x6148A (48 port 10/100/1000 copper GE).
> Admittedly I don't have any 6148 10/100 cards as a direct comparison.
> We've now declared the 6348s as infrastructure only, due to packet loss.  In
> an application where we're using it for customers rate-limited to 10Mbps (or
> lower) or committing to 10Mbps (or lower), it's theoretically <10% loaded
> and still dropping packets.  6248s were already on their way out, due to
> less (if any) QoS support.
> The 6148As are "wiring closet" cards, limited to 6Gbps total and 1Gbps per 8
> ports.  I believe this also precludes any >1Gbps EtherChannels, but we
> haven't gone there.  For our uses, a SIGNIFICANT boost over the 6348s.
> pt
> _______________________________________________
> 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/

More information about the cisco-nsp mailing list