[c-nsp] Comparison chart of 6509-E vs 4506-E

[Renelson Panosky]

Hello Jeff

I work for the government so we do have cisco, i will ask him for the NDA
and thank you the info you have provided is very helpful

Renelson

On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 4:31 PM, Jeff Wolfe <wolfe at ems.psu.edu> wrote:

> Do you have access to a Cisco sales team and SE? You should ask for an NDA
> on the 4500 and 6500.
>
> The architecture of the 4500 is different than the 6500. In the 4500, the
> linecards are basically smart PHYs, all the packets go back to the SUP for
> switching/forwarding.. The "E" chassis currently has 24Gb/s per slot back to
> the Sup, resulting in 2:1 oversubscription on all ports.
>
> Compare that with the 6500, where "it depends".  61xx modules put all
> packets on a 16Gb/s ring bus that passes through the SUP. Packets go on the
> bus regardless of where they exit the switch. 67xx modules have 20 or 40Gb/s
> 'taps' to the SUP. Packets go to the SUP for forwarding, unless the card has
> a DFC module, in which case the packets only go to the SUP if the
> destination port is not on the same slot.
>
> 6500 can hold other non-linecard modules, 4500 can not.
>
> 6500 does netflow.
> 4500 Sup5 does netflow, but Sup6E does *not* do netflow.
>
> We like the 4500 a lot. It's not perfect, but it fits our current and
> future needs in our enterprise LAN.
> We have 4507R-E chassis with redundant SUPs and full of 48p 1G linecards.
> They provide all the same functionality that a 6509 would, but they're
> physically smaller, consume half the power and are approximately half the
> price of the DFC enabled 6509 with 67xx modules.
>
> Compared to a 6509 with 61xx modules and Sup32, the 4500 is a considerably
> better switch from a performance and capacity perspective.
>
>
> You should ask your Cisco reps for an NDA on the 4500 and 6500. They have
> detailed comparisons, but they're only shown under NDA.
>
> $0.02
>
>
> -JEff
>
>
>
> Renelson Panosky wrote:
>
>> Hey James
>>
>> Thank you that's the same thing i found on the cisco website but i was
>> hoping for something a little better but thanks anyway
>>
>>