[c-nsp] Nexus 2000 vs Catalyst 4948 for access layer

[Livio Zanol Puppim]

Ok...

Let's try again, more simplyfied.

Using a DC topology with Nexus family, I must have, for gigabit
connectivity, Nexus 2000 -> Nexus 5000 -> Nexus 7000.

Using traditional way I can have Catalyst 4948 -> Nexus 7000, saving 10G
ports from Nexus 5000 for access.

That's my only problem, loosing ports com 5000... Is it clear enought?

Can you give me a good reason to use the first design?

2010/2/12 Tony Varriale <tvarriale at comcast.net>

> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Livio Zanol Puppim" <
>> livio.zanol.puppim at gmail.com>
>> To: "Jason Plank" <jmplank at gmail.com>
>> Cc: "Cisco NSP ((E-mail))'" <cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net>
>> Sent: Thursday, February 11, 2010 7:18 PM
>>
>> Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Nexus 2000 vs Catalyst 4948 for access layer
>>
>>
>  Brad,
>>
>> Can’t I make “the cloud” with traditional switches (4948 for example)?
>>
>
> You can call it what you'd like.
>
>
>  As I’ve said before, my only concern is that I’ll loose A LOT of access
>> ports
>> on Nexus 5000 that could be used by servers with 10GE/FCoE.
>>
>
> Ok, maybe I missed something.  What are you trying to do?  High density 1
> gig?  5k does that (with 2k).  Cheap and layer 2 high density 10g?  5k does
> that.
>
>
>  I’m expecting that 10G(with FCoE) will dominate the servers design, so my
>> loss will be huge.
>>
>
> It will be a large part of the future, no doubt.  Your loss?
>
>
>  f Nexux 2000 could be attached directly to an Nexus 7000 (it is not quite
>> dfficult to make that works) the deisgn would perfect fit for our needs…
>>
>
> As I've stated before, there is no if.  Not sure how many more times I have
> to say it...
>
> tv
> _______________________________________________
> 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/
>



-- 
[]'s

Lívio Zanol Puppim